1920-03-04

REPORTS TABLED.

[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of the Department of Customs and Inland Revenue for the year ended March 31, 1919; Shipping Report of the Department of Customs, containing statements of navigation and shipping of the Dominion of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1919.-Hon. Mr. Burrell.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiscouata):: I should like to ask the acting Prime Minister if there is any truth in the report that the Hon. Albert Sevigny is to replace Mr. DeCelles as Librarian of this Parliament, and if it is true that Mr. DeCelles has asked for superannuation?


Right Hon.   S@: No official action has been taken in regard to the matter of which my hon. friend speaks.



BOARD OF COMMERCE.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: Has the acting Prime Minister received any further correspondence in connection with the resignation of Judge Robson from the Board of Commerce or bearing on that resignation. If so, may I ask whether the correspondence will be laid on the Table, and when?


Right Hon.   S@: I
have received letters, but I am not prepared to say just now what will be brought down.



THE PRIME MINISTER'S HEALTH.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce):: The day before yesterday we were led to expect and hope that a statement would be made to the House regarding the condition of the health of the Prime Minister and his proposed plans. The two members of the Government who went down to New York to meet the Prime Minister have been back for two days now, and the statement which we were looking for with some anxiety is not forthcoming. May I ask whether the acting Prime Minister or some of his colleagues would to-day be in a position to inform the House on this matter?


Right Hon.   S@: I
could have given my hon. friend the information yesterday or the day before if he had asked for it. I was waiting to give some hon. member opposite, an opportunity to put the question. With reference to the health of the Prime Minister, I may say that for the two months that he has been away, the improvement in his health has been marked; and if the same rate of improvement continues as I hope it will,-and . I have no reason to fear otherwise-we may expect to have him with us, I think, within two months time.



SPECIAL IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I ask the acting Prime Minister whether the Imperial Conference which it was expected last session was to be summoned this year, is going to take place, and whether there is any truth in the report that it is likely to be held in Ottawa?


Right Hon.   S@: It
is not definitely known, and up to the present it has not been definitely decided that the Imperial Conference will take place this year. I think I may say that Canada, the city of Ottawa in particular, and all our hon. friends on both sides, would be glad if that Conference could be held here. Canada will not put any obstacle in the way of that; in fact she will be very favourable to it.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Hume Cronyn for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at

the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment of the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King thereto, resumed from Wednesday, March 3.
Mr. HOWARD PRIMROSE WHIDDEN (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak this afternoon, I wish to join with those who have already conveyed their felicitations to the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne. Mention was made by one of the previous speakers to these gentlemen as " props beneath a crumbling edifice." I had rather thought of them as gentlemen who were pillars in the commercial, social, and political life of their country and in their country's Parliament, pillars that were not alone supporting these objects and institutions worthily, but endeavouring worthily to support a Government which, much as fancy and imagination on the part of some might otherwise desire, seems as yet to give no evidence of old age, senility or decay. I do not believe that they are fragile or failing props. They are stalwart supporters of a well based representation of a people's wish and thought in connection with the affairs of this country. There was also to be noted in their speeches a freedom not to criticise the Government, but to express their own personal views, and in so doing, they have simply carried out the practice of the supporters of this Government during the last two years. It is not necessary to have a dead level of monotonous agreement in [DOT]order to have unity and strength. It is quite possible to have variety, difference of view-point, and yet to remain united on the great central and fundamental things. One hardly dare venture further to express -appreciation of this Chamber in which we are gathered. I can only express the hope that its lines and lighting, its colouring and solidity, and the combination of strength and beauty which characterize this Chamber will more than ever characterize the Canadian people collectively and individually.
I must confess my great surprise at the amendment, though it may not be necessary at this stage to assign reasons for voting against it. One can have great regard for the earnest and able address of the leader of the Oppositnon (Mr. Mackenzie King) in moving the amendment, and yet perhaps because of that find it all the more difficult to understand the why, and the how and the what for. For it is known to not a few hon. gentlemen who have gathered here in the last week since the *opening of Parliament that prominent sup-81
porters of his have of their own accord come to hon. members on this side of the House and said, " If any such nonsense is introduced by any of our men as to its being the duty of the Government to make an appeal to the electorate, take no stock in it. It is all bunk." This would seem to be evidence of a lack of unanimity of feeling among hon. gentlemen opposite or else of the failure of some of them to understand the mind of their leader.
In connection with the criticism of the speech from the Throne as altogether inadequately disclosing to (Parliament (the plans of the Government I should like to urge a word of dissent as well as of surprise in view of the references, prolonged and emphatic, to the War-time Elections Act, to the crumbling of representative government, or the ignoring of its principles', and m view also of the criticism of the promise in the speech from the Throne of a new franchise Act. Perhaps the greatest cause for surprise, in my case at least, was the "reference to the Government as being infinitely more concerned With external affairs than with the home business of this country. I am reminded that in different words, but in somewhat the same spirit and with the same point of view, similar statements were made for the first time in my hearing a little over two years ago during a. very vigorous campaign. Canada, as I shall try to show in a moment, has embarked upon world affairs, and can never consent to remain an isolated colony or nation on the northern half of this continent. Before referring to this a little more extendedly, I must express surprise also that there should seem to be drawn from the splendid edifice in which we find ourselves meeting, and from the way in which it has risen to its present almost completed form, a suggestion and symbolism of what the minds of men can do if they are set upon the great task of building well their country and their country's life, for I remember that in the early stages of the reconstruction of this building there were a great many who did not know what the Joint Committee was doing, and what the Government, the Department of Public Works, the architects and the contractors were doing, and consequently there was criticism right and left day after day and month after month, and yet all the time the work was going on. I take it, Mr. Speaker, that any government which is busying itself at any time in the nation's history with matters of vital importance will be so occupied and absorbed-that it

will be impossible for it to explain sufficiently and to the satisfaction of all the facu that it is engaged in a great building or re-building piece of business. The work of reconstruction has been going on in our country, and I think time will show more fully that while ministers of the Crown have not been going up and down throughout the land announcing in strident tones their achievements and accomplishments, nevertheless they have been making a good record as stewards of the people.
I should like to urge that in spite of the difference of opinion in the minds of some of the members of this House as to the importance of having a new franchise Act there are at least two reasons why it is time for such an Act. In the first place we all know that there will be, or should be, a Dominion census next year. [DOT] The people of Western Canada, no matter what their views on the problems that divide us, believe that when that census is taken they can rightfully claim a larger representation in the Parliament of Canada. I do not suppose that western members of tne Agrarian party or of the Liberal party, although they are somewhat hard to find from the West, or of the Unionist group, can be expected to favour an early election in view of the fact that we should have something to show as evidence of the growth of our Western provinces, and that evidence we shall have at the conclusion of the next Dominion census. I have something else in mind, Mr. 'Speaker. There is need for a well-based and adequate franchise Act upon the Statute Books of Canada, as the outgrowth of a conception of citizenship which is to be broader and better-based than anything we have ever had. 1 am of the opinion that no franchise Act that can be brought down will be adequate unless it provides that only those who know enough and feel enough, and those who will to act enough at all times in the nation's history, but especially in time of stress and crisis, shall be given the standing of citizenship. If we have within our borders those who do not measure up to this standard, then let this Parliament demand of the present Government that there shall be conducted that kind of campaign of education in the interests of true Canadianism that will ensure that all who might oppose the view I have just enunciated will find that every person whom they originally might have desired to see included will be so qualified that, in accordance with the principle I have laid down, they will have the right to vote, and not otherwise.

Citizens, Sir, are not merely human beings living within the confines of a country; they are people who have certain attitudes and cherish attachments not merely to the material things of their land, but to that great undefinable something which is not comprehended within the laws and institutions and the customs of a people, and which perhaps can best be described as the national sentiment, or the national spirit. It is for all such, and none other, that the new Franchise Bill, when it is passed by this Parliament, should make provision. If it observes this principle it will prove adequate and will go far towards the building up of a real and sterling national character and national prosperity as well.
With regard to Canada's relation to external affairs, I am sure that even the dreamiest idealist who ever succeeded in getting into any parliament would believe in a country's representatives planning for the development of its natural resources, and giving their time and attention to the affairs of their country. But I am satisfied, from the remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite, as well from those who have spoken on your right, Mr. Speaker, that there is an increasing conviction in the minds of representative Canadians that this does not embrace the whole conception of national life, and that a country's business has become a larger matter in recent years than it used to be. The world was a very big place when even those of us who are young to-day were boys. But the world is a neighbourhood at the present time, and if it is to be a neighbourhood not only commercially and socially, but in the truest economic and international sense, then surely a new country like Canada should not be the last to recognize its part and its place in relation to external affairs.
il desire to read two or three sentences from Sir William Goode's report on economic conditions in Central Europe as presented to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the month of January; for I am satisfied that we in Canada who sent so many representatives to the war have never fully realized, since the armistice was signed, what the results have been across the seas. Sir William Goode, among many other pointed statements, writes in these words:
In an endeavour to portray the economic chaos of central and eastern Europe one is apt to take it for granted that the world realizes the human suffering which inevitably follows in its wake. It is a horizon of so much suffering en masse that even those engaged in the work of relief may only be recalled to the individuality of it by a tug at

one's overcoat in the enow-covered streets of Vienna from some mirab child begging for the food which is not there, or by a glimpse into the typhus stricken villages behind the lines where the Poles are still fighting Bolshevik Russia. Vienna, perhaps more than any city In Europe, visualizes the misery that arises from want of food and coal and from the cumulative effects of over four years of ruinous war. Here, In a city of 2J million inhabitants, the sharp contrasts between pre-war prosperity and present day insolvency, between the nervous rich and the starving poor, between the relics of ill-fated monarchy and a revolutionary, but rather desperate, government, stand out with brutal appeal to the imagination.
Concerning Poland he states:
It is estimated that 500,000 tons of cereals must be imported in the year ending September, 1920, to supply the deficit of food in Congress Poland and the provinces of the east and the larger towns, and also to provide seed.
Concerning Czecho-Slovakia he states:
Imports of cereals are needed1 before the next harvest to the extent of 350,000 tons, together with about 400,000 tons of potatoes. The latter can be obtained from Poland. Large quantities of raw materials are required, including wool, cotton, jute, leather, copper, tin, nickel, oilseeds, oils, chemicals, nitrates, and other fertilizers. Czecho-Slovakia is short of locomotives, wagons and materials for repairs' to rolling stock.
Not only does Sir William Goode speak in these terms, but in the "Hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means in the House of Representatives," under date January 10, 1920, I find confirmation and support of his views:
According to the best information obtainable the minimum grain requirement necessary to carry Poland until the next harvest, and which can not be filled anywhere but in the United States, is 300,000 tons. This deficiency is due to a partial failure of the wheat crop and to a lack of fuel for threshing. Poland is at present living under a hand-to-mouth regime.. .
In Austria the acute misery and suffering are probably greater than in Poland. Two-tenths only of the present Austrian State are self-supporting in food, and the remaining eight-tenths, even before the war, produced food to supply themselves for six months of the year at most, and were dependent for the remaining six months upon importations. Consequently, the situation to-day, especially in Vienna, has become exceedingly grave, due to a shortage of coal and food. . . .
What the effect of a general social breakdown in Austria would be can of course only be conjectured.
If time permitted I could quote from several different statements made by Mr. Hoover but one or two brief sentences will suffice:
Poland presents one of the most appalling and appealing situations in Europe. . . . The Austrian situation is the worst in Europe.
He estimates the coming crops in Central Europe as follows:	Poland 75 or 80
per cent of pre-war normal; Southern Russia 80 per cent; Czecho-Slovakia 75 per cent; and Hungary 85 per cent. If Canada is to secure in a permanent way what has been won by her soldiers and others in the war, Canada must continue not only to have a theoretical and seminar sort of interest in Europe but a practical and political interest. If the members of the Government, who to-day should be specially charged with such matters, are not interested, then we who sit behind them, or in front of them, should see to it that they become sufficiently interested to rightly express the feeling and thought of the Canadian people who gave more than half a million of their sons to win the world war. I believe the Government, as those charged with responsibility, have been giving attention to these matters and that they will continue to give them such attention as Canadian sentiment demands.
Britain and the United States have done much to relieve distress. Canada has done something. Why should not Canada do more? Why should there not be an Anglo-American organization functioning to carry on and complete the kind of work that has already been well begun and in connection with such an organization? Why should not Canada have her own inter-related, and yet independent, part to play?
The Argentine has already passed a Bill to this end. Has the Argentine the same stake in the European situation that Canada has? Sir William Goode, in a later part of this same report, as the British director of relief for Central Europe, has referred directly and definitely to Canada. He says:
Invaluable advice was received from the premiers and representatives of the Dominions at the Peace Conference in Paris, particularly from Dr. J. W. Robertson,	who, on
the unanimous invitation of QMr. Hoover and his allied colleagues, attended the meetings of the Relief Section on behalf of the Canadian Government.
If Canada is to follow up and conserve what has already been gained in the way of an increasingly definite status, if Canada is to follow up and make secure that fuller and truer recognition of her nationality and increasing importance in the life of the world, let her not for one moment be so busily concerned in minding her own business that she forgets the business of other countries and so forgets her own.
I want, in resuming my seat, to put in-a brief plea for a broader Canadianism, a harmonious, a united and a not merely tolerant relationship. Tolerance never exists as between friends, much less as be-

tween members of the same family. I want to make a plea for a united life and purpose that will be so broad based that Canada, as her views of democracy and representative government develop-develop at least in their interpretation and application -will recognize some things which were neither recognized nor in existence at the time of Confederation. I believe that a long step in this direction will be taken if we have the right kind of a franchise Act put into effect within the next year.
Then, too, I would like to say, and I am sure we will all agree with it, that in our efforts to legislate, to govern and to develop our own resources and our own life, we will desire and plan so to do these things by co-operation with the other members of the Empire and the other nations of the great wide world.
It is to be hoped that many of the funerals that take place during the next few years will be the funerals of the little Canadians. There are many types. There is the pure MacKay provincial little Canadian; there is the antique colonial; there is the narrow nationalistic Canadian and he may speak more than one tongue. He may have been born to speak the tongue that I am speaking now. There may be the high sounding Imperialist who is a little Canadian, there may be the insular, stay-at-home-on-the-northern-half-of-this-North-American-contin-ent, and let-the-good-old-wealthy-British-mother-pay-the-bills type of Canadian. May these little Canadians rapidly-or as rapidly as a kind Providence sees best-pass off the stage and make room for their nobler and broader chested successors who will see a Canada which actually extends from the Atlantic to the Pacific and which has fair measurements north and south. Canada has moved out too far into the world and the world's affairs ever to be satisfied to retrace her steps. Her status in the Empire and in the League of Nations has been established, though definitions may be made more perfect in the coming years. We cannot go back upon what we have gained and what we have established. While our duty remains here on the northern half of this, the greatest continent in the world, our destiny will be linked up with the great brotherhood of the nations and external affairs will mean more to us in each succeeding year as we continue to take care in a large way of the growing, and increasingly important, business of this our Canadian country.
Mr. THOMAS W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Carleton): Mr. Speaker, after having

listened to so many eloquent and able speeches in the last few days, it is with a certain amount of trepidation that I rise at this time to address the House. That-feeling is all the more marked because I am the first member of the group of hon. gentlemen located on what is styled " the cross benches '' to break the ice at this session, and judging by the remarks of some of the speakers who have preceded me the water will be fairly cold. The impression seems to exist among some hon. members of this House, especially among those sitting on the Government side, that the independent group in this House are here to represent solely the farmers. I would like to correct that impression and to warn hon. gentlemen who entertain such an opinion that while our numbers, as yet, in this Chamber are but few, I believe we represent a majority of the public of Canada to-day. I believe that fact is realized by the hon. gentlemen to whom I refer, and that if it were not for it they would not be quite so concerned about our appearance in this Parliament. It is not our " contemptible little army " they are worrying about; they are apprehensive of the public opinion they must meet at the next general election.
Regarding the amendment before the House, I believe that if the electors of Canada were asked to pronounce upon it they would support it by an overwhelming majority. They would do that not -because it was moved., by the leader of the Liberal Party or because it is a liberal motion at all. In the first place the Union Government was formed to carry on the war, and its term of office was to be during the war and until demobilization was completed. The Union Administration was also to be composed of fifty per cent Liberals and fifty per cent Conservatives. I may say that I was a supporter of the Union Government at that time and on those terms. Now the war has ended, demobilization has been completed, and it looks to me, Mr. Speaker, as if the Union Government was done, too, as a Union Government, because nearly all the Liberal members of the Union Cabinet have resigned, giving as their reason for so doing that they believed the term for which the Union Government was elected had expired.
In the next place, I do not feel that this Government has been consistent in its policy. It has preached greater production, and has not enacted legislation to encourage production; and although it promised to appoint a committee to prepare tariff legislation to be brought before

the House at this session, we have no intimation in the speech from the Throne that this will be done. In fact, the inspired press of the Government has stated that no tariff legislation would be brought down this session.
Some of the greatest economists in the world to-day claim that the most important factor in restoring the world to normal conditions is " Production and Economy," and I believe we will all agree with that statement. As I have said, the' present Government has preached greater production but has not passed tariff legislation that would have that result, especially in regard to the necessaries of life. As for economy, I never heard the present Government accused of that. At the time the war was in progress, the Government instituted a campaign for the greater production of food, which was very necessary at that time, and is even just as imperative at the present moment. One would have expected that at a time when the food shortage was so acute the Government would have reduced the duty on fertilizers, which are so necessary, especially to the potato growers of the Maritime Provinces, if the yield was to be increased, and that it would also have lowered the duty on machinery, a very necessary step for the farmers to accomplish greater production, more particularly in view of the very great scarcity of labour. Instead of doing that the Government placed a seven and-a-half per cent war tax on machinery. Thus while the Government preached production, its own policy has been to penalize production.
But your High Protectionist will say " How will you raise the revenue?" While nobody would deny that the customs duty produces some revenue, I believe it is the most extravagant method on earth of raising a revenue.
Take fertilizers, of which we use large quantities in New Brunswick. I speak particularly of conditions in that province because it is that part of Canada I know most about. As I have already said, large quantities of commercial fertilizers are used in Newf Brunswick; they are devoted to the growing of potatoes, which is a staple crop in that province. The duty on mixed fertilizers, Mr. Speaker, is, as you know, ten per cent; and while the Canadian manufacturers of fertilizers import the raw material, or the chemicals, practically free of duty, they appraise against it the cost of the materials and the cost of mixing-manufacturing as they call it-plus the amount of the duty-and charge us the
net result. The result is that you can buy a car of American mixed fertilizers, bring it into any part of Canada and pay the ten per cent duty, at as cheap a rate as it would cost for the purchase of the Canadian mixed material. There are a large number of so-called Canadian fertilizer companies that are merely branches of American companies. These concerns are therefore in the position of charging the consumers of fertilizers in this country with this ten per cent duty. That duty really does not reach our revenue at all; it does not even stay in Canada, it goes to swell the banking account of the American companies.
There are also a number of machinery firms in Canada which are merely branches of American concerns. In some cases they have factories in Canada but in other cases they have not; they merely have assembling plants where the partly manufactured American parts are assembled and put on the Canadian market. These firms also collect the duties on their machinery from the Canadian consumer and the same result happens; it does not go into the revenue of Canada; it does not even stay in Canada, it goes to swell the American bank account. In this way it is manifest that .many thousands of dollars are lost to the revenue of Canada.
Now take the Ford car, which is the poor man's car. In singling out the Ford car I have no criticism of it to make; I have a Ford car which is pretty well worn out but it has given me excellent service. What I have said in reference to the Canadian mixed fertilizers and the Canadian assembled machinery applies perhaps more forcibly to the cheap Canadian made car, especially that type produced by American firms. This year in New Brunswick we are paying for Ford cars $240 more than our American neighbours just beyond the boundary line. Take the case of two men living on each side of the International boundary:	The American pays only $660
for his car while the Canadian has to pay $900 for exactly the same car manufactured by the same firm. The Canadian car is assembled and put together in this country and sold as a Canadian car but it does not pay any duty into the revenue of the country-that goes to swell the American bank account.
Mr. Speaker, the party to which I have the honour to belong has no desire tf>
" submarine the tariff." I believe that was the term applied with respect to our policy by a Cabinet minister speaking in

Montreal a few days ago. We all know that the minister in question (Mr. Meighen) is very apt at phrase making and forming expressions that attract the public ear. But we have no desire to submarine the tariff or anything else. The features of the tariff that we object to are those to which I have made allusion and which permit the Canadian consumer to be robbed without any benefit to the country. These features of the tariff in their operation work exactly the same to-day as the adverse exchange on Canadian money. No doubt the Canadian manufacturer will hail this adverse exchange as a Godsenci to Canada, for it will effectually shut out American competition. It works exactly the same way as the items in the protective tariff, to which I have alluded. If you buy American made goods there is a discount on your money of nearly as much as the tariff will amount to-not as much as it would amount to on a Ford car, more than it would amount to on a mower, and as much as it would amount to on some other farm machinery.
Your high protectionist will say, "Oh, yes, it is just as I thought. Your plea is all for the farmers. You want free entry for fertilizers, farm machinery and the cheap car that the farmers use." And perhaps some people will say, "What does the farmer need with a car?" Mr. Speaker, in this day of high wages and scarcity of labour the farmer in the back concessions needs a car more than his city brother does. It is an absolute necessity when he has to leave his work to go on any errand of business for him to be back home as soon as possible. The old-fashioned method of locomotion by foot or by horseback or by horse and buggy is too slow for this day and generation. So it is absolutely necessary as a matter of economy that the farmer should own a cheap car.
On the other hand, if the duty on farm machinery and on fertilizers increases the cost of production of farm produce more than it should, does it hurt the farmer alone? I claim that it does not. If on account of this high rate of duty on his machinery and the raw material that goes into the production of his crop it costs the farmer more than it should to produce that crop, who suffers most? I claim that the farmer is not the principal sufferer, because perhaps he does not use five per cent of the crops that he produces on his farm. The labouring man, the city man-even I imagine my good friend the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) uses some of
(Mr. Caldwell.]
the products of the farm. Of course, I do not suppose he would lose as much on the farm produce he uses as he would gain, say, by the duty on ploughs-and he manufactures good ploughs, too, I can assure you; 1 have used them-but I believe that this very feature of the tariff is a big factor in the present high cost of living and the unrest to which it gives rise. I believe that the high cost of living could be materially lowered by making the very changes I have just spoken of.
And here, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the letter that the right hon. the leader of the Government (Sir George Foster) placed on the Table on the 2nd of March-the letter from the Hon. H. A. Robson, K.C., Chairman of the Board of Commerce, as I think that perhaps a paragraph or two from it will corroborate the statement I have made, that the present Government or the past Government-I do not know which you would call it; perhaps it is not past yet. [DOT]


Mr. A. B. OOPP:: It will be in a little while.


Mr. CALDWELL:: The statement I made was that their legislation has not been favourable to production. Mr. Robson writes:
Dealing with it as a measure to repress profiteering, I have further objection to the Pair Prices part of The Combines and Fair Prices Act (which is the important part of that Act) in that it picks out for profit regulation those classes of producers and traders who deal in the necessaries of life. This regulation does not apply to the great number of other branches of business and occupations. We restrain and discourage the citizen who supplies food and clothing but leave free to profiteer as he pleases the man who deals in nonessentials or luxuries. We do not touch any excessive charging for service involving mechanical or professional experience. There can only be one effect, i.e., to discourage persons from entering into the production and distribution of the necessaries of life.
There is, to my mind, further objectionable discrimination in that the measures for controlling the selling prices of the retailer are in terms fairly effective, while those for reaching the manufacturer are not so.
A profiteering measure to reach the distributing class should, in my opinion, be local in its character and be administered locally. Federal machinery cannot reach the grievance effectually throughout all Canada.
It seems to me further that the Act actually contains a provision which removes the last chance the consumer had to do anything for himself in reducing the cost of living. There never was before the Act anything to prevent a group of consumers from co-operating in the purchase of necessaries. They took their chance of being able to buy. But a declaration of parliamentary policy crept into the Act, and a manufacturer or wholesaler is not bound to

sell to classes who were not accustomed to purchase from such manufacturers and wholesalers. This was designed to head off cooperative movements, which were likely to make progress for the benefit of consumer members and, as I say, restricted a remedy which elsewhere has been of some effect in price control.
If the remarks I have made need any proof, Mr. Speaker, I think you have it there in what Mr. Eobson states, and you have it on the authority of a man in whom the Government had such great confidence that it put him in control of the Board of Commerce.
I do not wish to take up very much of the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, because I find as I travel through
4 p.m. the country that the people believe Parliament wastes too much time in discussion on the reply to the speech from the Throne. But before I sit down I wish to assure the Government of my appreciation of the honour they conferred upon me in my recent election by sending three of their ablest cabinet ministers all the way down to New Brunswick to help my opponent to lose his deposit, especially at a time when Parliament was in session and such very important matters were before it for consideration. I believe that one of those ministers, the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) could hardly be reconciled to the statement which I made at that time that I considered that this visit or visitation of these cabinet ministers to my constituency increased my majority by at least one thousand votes.
Well, Sir, I will try to enlighten him. I was nominated and ran as an Independent candidate, pledged to support any measure which I believed was for the best interest of Canada, irrespective of which party should introduce it. So that this very decided opposition of the Government to my election seemed to the electors of my constituency to be an admission by the Government that they did not intend to introduce any legislation that would be in the best interests of the people, and my electors resented it. Some of the electors were even mean enough to say that this assistance to my late opponent was for -services rendered in the last general election.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct the false impression, which, as 'I have said before, some hon. members seemed to have or were trying to have: That the Independent party in this House is here to submarine the fiscal policy of Canada in the interests of the farmers, regardless of all other industries or people in this Dominion.
I wish to assure this House, so far as in me lies, that we are here not to tear down, but to give what assistance we can towards the building up of a Greater Canada, so that not only the people of this Dominion but the people of the whole world may say, "Surely Canada is a bit of God's own country."
Mr. WILLIAM A. BUCHANAN (Lethbridge) : Mr. Speaker, I will be quite frank at the outset and say the remarks I am about to make are not inspired so much by the speech from the Throne as by the amendment offered by the hon. leader of the Opposition. I am in this position that, so far as I am concerned, an election can come at any moment; but at the present time I want to make a choice and in making that choice I desire to consider the interests of the section of the country from which I come, and at the same time I do not want to be sectional in the observations I make though I wish to make them from the standpoint of the western provinces.
The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has moved an amendment demanding an election. Next year we know that a census is to be taken in this country, following which census there should be a redistribution, and in my judgment, as a result of that census and redistribution, we would have, in the Prairie Provinces, or if you were to take all the western provinces, twenty new members in the House of Commons. If I were to support the amendment of the leader of the Opposition and it carried, what would be the result? There would be an election as there was in 1911, and the West would not obtain, for four or five years to come, its full representation on the census of 1921. If the Government is prepared to state that there will be a census and redistribution next year, I prefer to take chances on the Government of the day rather than to withhold for four or five years the proper representation that the West should have in this House. I know there are represented in this country and in this Parliament of the Dominion of Canada interests which are anxious that the West should not have its full representation until the last possible moment. I do not know whether the leader of the Opposition desires to associate himself with those interests in Eastern Canada; but we know that those people do not want Western Canada to have any larger voice in the affairs in this country than it has at present if they could in any way withhold the representation to which Western Canada is entitled. In the West we feel that

we are entitled to our full representation, and that, if we are to have an election at this time, that representation will be delayed for foui or five years.
May I be personal for a moment and explain my position as a member of this House? 1 do not feel at the present time that I am wedded to the support of the Government of the day. I feel that I have fulfilled my obligations to Union Government, because I was elected as a Liberal supporting Union Government. I advocated Unionism and supported it; I was elected as a supporter of Union Government for the purpose of carrying on the war, and, in my judgment, that period has elapsed. But am I at this moment to precipitate an election and thus prevent the section of the country in which I live from having its proper representation in the Commons of Canada? I prefer to act as a free lance in this House, and to avoid an election if necessary, in order that Western Canada may have, as soon as possible, its full and proper representation in this House. What would happen if we were to defer the question of an election for another year? We have only this choice to make: We have the Opposition and we have the Government; and so far as I am concerned, the toss of a coin would satisfy me in that respect and probably would satisfy a good many people in this country. I am prepared to take a chance on the Government (for another year in order that we should have a census and a redistribution. I believe it would only be necessary to have one session of Parliament following the present session before we could have a redistribution and before an appeal could be made to the country on the basis of a representation in accordance with the census of 1921.
I have no hesitation in saying that 1 believe that Union Government fulfilled the purpose for which it was elected. I have always said so, and I have no apologies to jnake for supporting Union Government. But when we come to times of peace; v'hen we are to discuss domestic problems, then there is bound to be a probability that I shall differ with this Government and that I shall want to align myself with those who agree with the views that I have consistently advocated in times of peace. I am perfectly satisfied with the record of Union Government as a war Government, and I think history will prove that Union Government served the purpose for which it was elected and was a great necessity to Canada in war time. I hope I have

made my position clear on the question of the amendment.
I am not in favour of the amendment if we can have an election next year following the census and a redistribution. I prefer to carry on for the present in order that Western Canada may have its proper representative voice in the affairs of this country. As -I said before, I know there are people and interests who do not want Western Canada to have its proper representation in this Parliament at the present time, I am not prepared to encourage those people in their views; on the contrary I am content to wait for the earliest possible realization of the representation to which Western Canada is entitled.
As I said in rising, my main purpose in speaking this afternoon was to make myself absolutely clear as to my attitude towards the .amendment. While I am on my feet I should like to make some observations regarding what has been called the unrest which exists in this country and how it is best for us, as a people and as a Parliament, believing in the institutions which exist in Canada and which are the foundations of the Government of this country, to act towards this seeming unrest. I know there is a good deal of agitation in the country. There is what might be called revolutionary sentiment in Canada. People are going about spreading new doctrines, and what are we as members of Parliament and as citizens of this Dominion doing to combat that sentiment ? I do not believe in repressive measures, but I do think we should have educational measures to counteract the agitation which certainly exists throughout a good part of the country. We should go out and educate as to our system of Government the new citizens of this Dominion, the people who are being appealed to by thes.e agitators. We should let them understand that they have in this land the fullest freedom and opportunity to realize their ambitions if they can convert the majority of the people to their views. We should do that rather than adopt repressive measures which would make them feel that that kind of freedom does not exist in this country. It must be remembered that I am not in sympathy with the views that are being advocated by those people, but I am expressing my views as to what we should do to combat them in the best way so as to avoid further trouble and to restore amongst those people confidence in our institutions.

Many charges have been made that there is profiteering in this country; and that the control of the Government is in the hands of a few people. If that be the case, it is our duty to remove that control. If it be not the case we should enlighten the people. I happened to read the other day an article in an American paper concerning a district affected by the recent steel strike. One of the causes at the back of that steel strike undoubtedly was this continual talk of profiteering; that the steel corporation and its shareholders were making huge returns from the business and that the employees were not getting their fair share. One steel factory in the state of Ohio, taking its employees into its confidence, had enlightened them as to the business, as to the dividends that were being paid and as to the cost of operation. And as a result those men were satisfied that the industry was paying them all it could afford to pay them under the circumstances so that, when the steel employees throughout the United States were called upon to strike, the men at this particular mill did not go out. I think there is an obvious, lesson there for all the industries of this country, and that is, to enlighten the men who are serving in those industries and to enlighten the people in reference to these charges of profiteering. That can be done quite easily, and it will save a great deal of the industrial unrest that exists, and help to remove a great deal of the suspicion which exists in the minds of the people. I believe that a good many of our industrial troubles in Canada are due to suspicion more than to anything else. The men are suspicious of their employers, and the employers are suspicious of the men identified with their unions, and this feeling of suspicion prevents them getting together. If both sides would only come out in the open and deal frankly with each other, a great many of our industrial difficulties could be avoided.
It has been my custom in this debate to make a declaration of my views on the fiscal policy of the country. I want to say that I stand where I have always stood, in favour of the lowest kind of a tariff. But I would say to the Government and to the House that in regulating the tariff we should aim at relieving the burdens that are imposed upon the mass of the people, and aim also at the development of our natural resources. If we could have had a tariff in this country that would enable all the implements of production that are used in
the development of our resources to be got as cheaply as possible, it would do a great deal for the development of our resources and toward relieving the country of its financial obligations. If the implements that are used in mining, for instance, in lumbering, in fishing, and in agriculture, could be made as cheap as possible to the people who'are producing along those lines, there would be an encouragement to greater production, and the richer the country becomes in production the better position we shall be in to meet our financial obligations. I am not one of those who believe we can go out and slash the tariff all to pieces at the present time. I know that for some years to come we must utilize the tariff for raising revenue. But, the tariff should be directed wholly toward raising revenue, rather than to, protecting certain industries that have enjoyed protection in this country for a great many years. Possibly, members of the Government who are not moving around so much and getting in touch with the minds of the people would like to know what the feeling of the people is with regard to the protected interests. To be frank, the great mass of the people, who are finding it hard to live to-day, and who see everything they buy rising higher and higher in price, realize that the men who are engaged in the protected interests in this country are living in comparative ease and comfort, having amassed a considerable fortune. They say that is due to the high protection given to those industries. Surely if the men engaged in these protected industries have amassed fortunes through a protective tariff, it is time we reduced that tariff and gave the people who are working day in and day out to make an honest living a chance not only to do so, but to save a little. That is the view of the people I come in contact with from day to day. We must have a tariff to raise revenue, but I do not think that tariff should be directed towards the protection of industries that have enjoyed protection in this country for so many years.
I should like to make a suggestion about the income tax. I am an advocate of income tax. I Relieve that if it is properly administered it can be made to yield a great revenue to this country, but I feel (and I do not place the blame on the Minister of Finance) that the tax has not been efficiently administered up to now, and that we are not getting from it the amount of revenue we should. I believe there are people who are evading the tax. I have only recently received communications intimating

that some people are boasting that they have not paid the tax while some of their neighbours paid it. I have not their names or I would be glad to give them, for I have no sympathy with any man who evades paying the taxes imposed in this country. At the same time, I feel the administration has been weak, largely because an attempt has been made to centralize it'instead of spreading out the organization a little more widely in the different provinces. In the province of Alberta, for instance, until quite recently I understand we had only one income tax officer, located in the city of Calgary. Another officer has since been located in Edmonton, but the oflicers must be closer than that to the population of the country, or they cannot reach the people who should pay the income tax. I think there should be officers in all the larger centres of all the provinces. I believe the expense would be repa>id a hundredfold by the intimate knowledge they would have of the people liable to pay this tax.
I should like to make another observation. We have at the present time government ownership of railways on a very extensive scale, and I am glad we have it. I believe that government ownership can be made a success, and the Government of the day should see that every effort is made to encourage the efficient operation of our government roads, but I do hear complaints that some of the roads we have had in our possession for some years are not being operated efficiently-that the roadbeds have not been improved to the necessary extent to make operation successful. As an advocate of government ownership I would urge the Government to use its utmost efforts to get at the head of the Government system the most efficient administrator that can be obtained. We have a big system, bigger than the Canadian Pacific. I do not think the question of salary should be a consideration. We should get the very best railroad man.on this continent at the head of the system and pay him a big salary. That is the only way to make the system a success. Politics should be kept [DOT] entirely out of the operation of the system. So far as I know, politics have not entered into the operation of the railway, but the people generally feel a little doubtful of the success of government operation, and it is up to the Government to prove that government operation can be made a success; if they do, the people will be satisfied.
In closing, I should like to pay a tribute to the attitude that has been taken recently by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. 
Rowell) in connection with the reservations to the Peace Treaty proposed in the United States Senate, which, if adopted, would take away from Canada its place in the League of Nations. I believe that the President of the Privy Council has the bulk of the people behind him in his attitude. I do not want to see Canada participate in any more wars, but I say that the part Canada played in the recent great war in Europe entitles her to a place in the League of Nations, and to a voice in deciding whether or not there shall be wars in the future. I have no desire to cast any reflection on the United States, but I will boast of this fact, that Canada was in the war from its inception, and sacrificed thousands of men for the principles for which they were fighting; and this nation therefore has just as much right to a voice in the councils of the League of Nations as has the United States of America.


Mr. OLIVER ROBERT GOULD (Assini-boia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with considerable diffidence to make this my maiden speech in the House of Commons, and I trust that hon. gentlemen at the other end of the Chamber will be able to hear me distinctly, because it is my desire that some of the remarks which I intend to make shall reach them. In my new capacity as a member of the House of Commons I have watched with considerable interest the gladiators, as I may perhaps term them, on both sides of the House. I have seen blows offered and parried, and the proceedings, I must say, have at times been rather diverting. As I have listened to the debate I have wondered whether all these charges and counter-charges have been really indispensable to the conduct of the affairs of the Dominion of Canada, or whether they have become necessary as a matter of tradition. Be this as it may, I beg to add my small mead of praise of the sentiments that have already been expressed by so many hon. gentlemen in this House in reference to the admirable addresses that have been delivered by the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne. The exalted office discharged by those hon. gentlemen has not fallen to my lot, and my remarks must of necessity be more of a practical kind. Nevertheless I can assure this House that I duly appreciate the lofty ideals and the broad views to which expression was given in both of the addresses in question, and though I may lack a full conception of the height and broadness of vision which should characterize a representative of the people, I hope

to prove that I am absolutely sincere in my appreciation of the views which my hon. friends, the mover and seconder of the Address, have so well stated. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I'was gratified to have the privilege of being present at the opening of Parliament in this beautiful building. As I viewed its imposing magnificence and its beautiful architectural design from the outside; as I have promenaded the corridors; as I have listened to hon. gentlemen describing the beauties of the building, I myself have acquired a deeper conception of true Canadianism than I heretofore had.
I have no doubt that this building is a fitting monument to the greatness of the Canadian people; and to the architect and those associated with him I am constrained to offer my congratulations on the splendid result of their genius. I admire, and indeed almost envy, the mind of the man who has such a large conception of everything that is worthy and inspiring as has been so ably exhibited in the beautiful and spacious building in which we are privileged to be assembled. I am sure that this building will stand out as a prominent landmark among all the public buildings, not only of Canada but of the North American continent, and will be a credit to this newly recognized young giant, the Canadian nation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have not come here in any fighting spirit; I have come in a measure to tender to hon. gentlemen the olive branch. I am temperamentally a man of peace, not essentially disposed to combat; although it has been known in the past, I think, that I can retort when severely attacked. But I do believe, and sincerely so, that the hon. gentlemen who compose this House on both sides will listen with reason, and I trust with more interest than we have seen displayed in the past, to every statement of conditions as they really are. I am inclined to think that when we express our convictions, and place before this House our conception of conditions as they exist in the country to-day, hon. members may be disposed to revise their ideas, and that possibly some of the decisions that have already been arrived at may be reversed. I think that the consensus of opinion in this House inclines to the view that what we shall have to say will be hearkened unto, because whatever stand we may take on any question that may call for consideration in this House will be taken in all sincerity. Naturally my viewpoint, as I address this House, must be taken from western conditions, and I believe that I am in a far better position to know those conditions than many hon. members in this Chamber. I deplore the fact that any inference should be sought to be drawn that the movement with which we are associated-the Agrarian Movement as it is called-is a class movement. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in its initiation it was not intended to be such, and that fact has been proclaimed on platforms and in the press. Indeed, Sir, we know that it never could succeed as a class movement. The platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture, called now the new National Policy, is big enough and broad enough to embrace all classes in this Dominion of ours, and to protect the interests of the nation, and if hon. gentlemen refuse to accept this statement as true and insist upon describing us as a class organization, then I can only say that the fault is not with us. For we hold an open hand and are ready to co-operate with all in order to further the interests of Canadian life. This statement is known to be true by those who have had an opportunity of studying our platform at first hand. They know that no distinction has ever been drawn between rural districts and tfrban centres, and an examination of the returns will show that the people who are best conversant with that platform have all approved of it, whether in the urban centres or in the rural districts. That fact should be sufficient to dispel the idea that ours is a class movement, and it should not be necessary for an individual to stand up in this House in order to proclaim it. It has been stated with great insistence on the hustings and elsewhere that in this movement there is an aim to further the interests of a class.
It is a fact that our own conviction was that such an idea could not, and should not, succeed. If hon. gentlemen accept my statement and my interpretation of our attitude, I am sure we will not have the charge thrown at us that we favour class legislation or a class movement. I am proud to be able -to say that that is the feeling of the great farmers' organization of the West, whose platform, as I said before, is big and broad enough for all who may wish to stand upon it and to assist us in our effort to make Canada a better place to live in than it has been in the past.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE:: If I join your organization, not being a farmer, will I be permitted to take any part in determining its policy?
12(1


Oliver Robert Gould: I am pleased that the hon. gentleman has asked me that question and I will reply in the affirmative. I wish to make this further statement that at the convention which we held-and I believe we held one of the most democratic conventions that ever took place in Canada- there were eighteen names upon the slate, four of them divines, three of them merchants, two (professional men and the rest farmers, and that it took five and a half hours to 'ballot it through. That is a sufficient answer to the hon. gentleman and it is the best evidence that we do not have a class movement. Urban and rural centres both sent their delegates; fourteen hundred men and women sat in that skating rink .and it took them five and a half hours balloting in order to find this unworthy individual. Surely that should be a sufficient answer, surely that should be proof that the words that I have spoken here have been spoken in all sincerity and that there is no basis for the fear that some hon. gentlemen seem to have that this is destined to be a class movement.


Mr. HALLADAY:: Is it not true that in the rural constituencies in Alberta they will allow no one but a farmer to be a member of the organization?


Oliver Robert Gould: I speak for the province of Saskatchewan alone where I am best known. I am the only representative from the West who has been elected on the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. Consequently, the experiences of Alberta are as yet an unknown quantity-I do not know. While I speak to the House to-day I speak across what may be called No Man's Land for what, as my colleague who preceded me said, may be regarded as the contemptible little army. Perhaps I should not use that expression but if we go 'back to find a precedent for its use on the war-torn fields of Europe we find that the term was made applicable not to the assaulting party but merely to the defensive party. While we take that position here to-day, we hope the day will come, and come quickly, when hon. gentlemen seated in this House will accept our policy and help us. That is our hope and ambition.
My hon. friend who preceded me made reference to the assistance he received during his election down in New Brunswick. I have a somewhat similar tale to tell although the fact is that my opposition did not come from members of the Government. I entertain no animosity towards the hon. .gentlemen who came to my electoral dis-

trict-none whatever; in fact, I believe our friendship has been cemented as a result of their visit. Scripture tells us that wise men invariably come from the east. We were always led to believe that when wise men came from the east they came in bodies of three. It was heralded all over the electoral district of Assiniboia that three were to come. However, when the train pulled into our little station, only two got off. They were dressed immaculately and they carried leather grips, something that was scarcely understood in the west. These hon. gentlemen, a,s they gazed upon the people who were working in the town, were no doubt filled with wonder that these people simply went on about their work although' they were in the heat of a political campaign. Yet it is a fact, to make a long story short, that these gentlemen returned east and I am satisfied that they 'returned wiser than when they came west. I would give a cheque for a hundred dollars of my sessional indemnity to find out swbat actually took place among the three when they again met after the election in Assiniboia. An hon. gentleman on the Government side of the House made reference to the election in Assiniboia and said that the majority was approximately 4,000. Let me inform the hon. gentleman that there was a majority of 5,294 which was amply sufficient to tell the people of the Dominion that the electors of that constituency at any rate believed they had a grievance. It was perfectly expressed by the exponents of our new platform and it is a fact that the people of Canada have become educated. They have become educated along lines of progress which they believe it is necessary for this Dominion to pursue and the people of Assiniboia showed the result of their belief in the action they took on the 27th day of October.
A sentiment was given expression to by an hon. gentleman on the Opposition side of the House to which I wish to make a brief reference. That sentimerit, expressed by an hon. gentleman who stands high in the Liberal party was that he would not trade with any nation that would not recognize our Canadian dollar as being worth one hundred cents. I would direct the attention of the House to the fact that immediately after the American Civil War the American dollar went down in value tc about 37 cents and it i.s not. on record that the Government of Canada refused to take advantage of the difference in exchange in dealing with our neighbours to the south. There must be consistency. If that hon. gentleman lived near the inter-

national boundary in Saskatchewan and Alberta and he found that his neighbour *within a mile or two of him was receiving from 70 cents to $1 a bushel more for his wheat than he was privileged to receive -on this side, I am sure he would take advantage oi every opportunity that, was afforded to take his wheat across the line, receive that extra 70 cents or $1 and bring hack good American money and spend ,t with the merchants in Canada. That is just as loyal, just as true a.s the nositmn which the hon. gentleman takes and it is the proper business attitude. Consequently I do not think the sentimenr. oi not trading with a country that refuses to ajooept our ,money at ipar should carry much weight with the real business men of Canada. I do not suggest this so much in a spirit of criticism as I do from the purely business point of view. Business is business and the best interests of the country require that we should encourage an interchange of commodities across the international boundary rather than that we should place obstructions, sentimental or otherwise, in the way. I visited the town of Sherwood, North Dakota, during our campaign to get direct information on this subject. The operator in one of the elevators there had compiled figures, and he showed them to me, disclosing that $12,000 of good American money on the proportion of wheat that had been brought into that town from the Canadian side-a $12,000 equity-had been paid at that time to Canadian producers who had marketed their wheat there. How near will the price we shall receive for our participation certificates equal the price we feel we should receive. I have a few of those in a little box at home for which I was offered five cents a bushel. That was the valuation some of the business men of Canada placed upon our participation certificates. I refused, of course, to accept the offer; but the fact remains that I would prefer to accept nothing for my participation certificates than take a premium of five cents a bushel. I for one never expect to receive for my participation certificates the same amount that my American cousin on the south side of the line enjoys.
The question has been asked " for what do we stand?" From our viewpoint one of the most important things we stand for is a big reduction in the tariff, a question that was well taken by the hon. gentleman who preceded me. He explained the matter in a manner that well commends
itself to me and I am not now going to discuss at length the protective features of the tariff. I quite understand that later on an opportunity will be given of going into the subject at length. I shall simply now content myself by placing on record the statement that I am utterly opposed to the. high protective principle involved in the tariff and let the matter go at that.
We not only stand for a reduction in the customs duties but we advocate the nationalization of our national resources and various other policies which I will not occupy the time of the House by dwelling upon at the present.
The planks set out in our platform have on many occasions given cause for alarm to many of the " interests " in this country and they have asked in dismay "where will the revenue come from if these policies are carried out?" Some of the planks in our platform have been called destructive, but we have a constructive policy to replace anything that may appear as destructive, a constructive policy Sir that I believe would be in the interests of Canada as a whole. What that policy is can be determined by a close and earnest study of the provisions set out in the planks of our policy.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Does the hon. gentleman believe in the principle of protection at all, whether it be high or low?


Oliver Robert Gould: I do not.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: That is a plain statement.


An hon. MEMBER:: The grain growers do not want any protection.


Oliver Robert Gould: I would like to further
add that I never did believe in that policy and I do not expect I ever will.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is quite explicit.


Oliver Robert Gould: Now as to the question
of where the revenue is to come from. That has been a very interesting subject of debate during our campaign in the West and where the merits of the question have been discussed the people who have heard our explanations have been thoroughly and perfectly satisfied. Let me give an illustration as to possible sources of revenue. On the Atlantic coast, at Montreal, at Fort William, at Hudson bay, and on the Pacific coast there are great stretches of water frontage which have fallen into the hands of private individuals. Providence created them but through the operation of the institutions and orgariiza-

tions of our country they have been acquired by private individuals. The owners of these frontages through their development have become wealthy. Possibly as low a sum of $100 was paid for some of these privileges and ultimately they were sold for as much as $600,000 for no effort on the part of the individual who received the equity. I maintain and I insist that it is only right and proper in the interests of the people of Canada that the Dominion Government should appropriate ninety per cent of the money that accrued to such speculators and use it for the purpose of administering the national affairs.
We are told by 'scientists that the whole of the province of Alberta and large areas of Saskatchewan are underlined with coal. Up near the Pas in Manitoba we also know that large and valuable deposits of copper occur. I was informed that on one quarter section alone the vein was known to be worth $1,000,000. The profits from these great natural resources are going to the country to the south owing to concessions to American capitalists'. They are taking our heritage. Our birth right and heritage is being handed over to outsiders and yet we are bewailing the fact that we cannot find sufficient revenue to run the country. I have indicated possible sources of revenue to say nothing of other planks in our platform with respect to taxation -not indirect taxation. The policy of direct taxation is something that the people can see and understand. That indirect taxation should have been resorted to means that the people have not understood and do not appreciate the conditions involved. It is a form and system of deception and I think no Government should follow out any such principle. At any rate that is my earnest belief.
I desire now for a few minutes to discuss conditions that pertain to my own electoral district. It is a fact which has already been mentioned here that for three sessions Assiniboia has been unrepresented. Let me qualify that statement, in a measure and at the same time pay my tribute to the hon. gentleman who preceded me in the representation of. the constituency and who has now been elevated to the Senate. I know for a fact that the hon. gentleman in question on many occasions did his best for Assiniboia and succeeded admirably in having that district represented. That however was a form of indirect representation and owing to the extra burdens that have been placed upon the hon. gentleman in question by his elevation to the Senate

the district of Assiniboia has been deprived of the direct representation to which it was entitled. I am not now speaking in criticism of the Government. The time perhaps was not ripe for the great agrarian movement which has since developed such strength to manifest itself had a by-election been brought on earlier. The fact nevertheless remains that Assiniboia has for some time been unrepresented and conditions there have been more or less in a state of chaos. The conditions that have developed there, from an agricultural point of view are deplorable and before I came here I had some correspondence with members of the Government asking that some relief might be afforded to certain of the farmers in south eastern Saskatchewan as a result of repeated droughts, loss of crop, and last year the devastating havoc caused by grasshoppers.
I hold in my hand representations made by six municipalities regarding the deplorable conditions resulting from the devastation caused by grasshoppers last year. I have asked that these settlers, these men that want to produce for the sake of the country, be given an opportunity to retrieve their position. I am told that they are to be given an opportunity-that the Dominion Government iwill back their efforts to purchase seed. iBut what is the use of seed for their horses this winter? These men want money. In 1916 rust and hail destroyed a large portion of their crops. I myself suffered a total loss that year. In 1917, 1918 and 1919 there were partial losses. These men need help-not protection, not for a moment. They want assistance so they can purchase feed for their animals and go ahead and produce 100 per cent. I do not wish to read the letters which I have here corroborating the statements I have made, letters from the reeves and the secretaries of the municipalities affected, hut I would ask you to accept my word that I am truly representing the conditions that obtain in that Western country. I would respectfully ask for recognition of the appeal I make on behalf of those people that they receive greater assistance than has been tendered to them through the medium of the Provincial Governments, and I would like to know that they will receive such assistance very soon, because at this season of the year they are making strenuous efforts to carry on; but under existing conditions, no matter how strenuous each individual effort may be, those people are going to be absolutely incapacitated from producing what they are so anxious to produce-one hun-

dred per cent, a percentage which the country needs and wishes them to produce. '
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, referring once more to the three sessional indemnities due Assiniboia, I would suggest that a requisite amount be added to the total of those indemnities and given to these people to afford them a chance to overcome the adverse conditions which have almost overwhelmed them, for it is a fact that they have suffered much, and I am sure that any help that may be accorded to them they will repay one hundred fold. I have spoken in the interests of my constituents, and I am pleased that you have given me your earnest attention, and, thanking you for your kindness, I will now resume my seat.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I take this opportunity to say that while there is no disposition on the part of the Chair to restrict debate upon the Address, I would remind hon. members of the subject before the House, and also of the circumstance that there will be a Budget Debate later on in the session.
Mr. WILLIAM F. MACLEAN (South. York): Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity .in making my first address in this very fine Chamber to appeal for a re-5 p.m. turn to parliamentary government, to parliamentary practice, and to parliamentary responsibility for the 'conduct of our public affairs. Partly because of the war no, doubt we departed from parliamentary government and from parliamentary responsibility, but I think the time has come, when an effort should b*e made to return to the former well established principles, and, in the first place, I hold the Unionist Party and the Unionist Government responsible for the maintenance of those principles.
I have alwayfe been a. supporter of Union Government. I pointed out early last session, when opportunity presented itself, that to deal with the war it was necessary to have a union of parties, and that it would be necessary in some measure to depart from the practice that had hitherto obtained in this country. But now the war is over, and to my mind it is high time we got back to the observance of the rules of parliamentary Government that have obtained not only in the Mother Country but in all the Dominions, and which have proved to be the only foundation of democratic government.
I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that the departure which has been made in this country is most pronounced in connection 9
with the office of Prime Minister. Most of all the Prime Minister must be the actual leader of his Government, and he must lead one at least of the Houses of Parliament. That has always been the practice, and I regret that owing to the illness of the Prime Minister he has not been able to lead this House for many months, and there is not much prospect that we will soon return to the old practice. On behalf of the people of this country, irrespective of any party, I say that it is time we discussed for a moment what constitutes parliamentary government, to see if it is not in the interests of the country to come back to it, and particularly to come back to it in connection with the office of the Prime Minister.
Not only must the Prime Minister lead the House and the Government, but he is also responsible for something else:	He
must select the ministers of his Government, and he must see that those ministers are elected. We have reached a hiatus when that is not taking place, and the responsibility is on the Unionist Party-the party that won the war and has a very creditable record to its account. Therefore as a friend of Union Government and as one who has supported 'every proposal made by that Government in this House to win the war, I shall call attention to what I think ought to be done to recover our position.
The main thing I wish to call attention to is that we must come back to the old practice. I regret that the Prime Minister is away. I regret that he saw fit to offer to resign his position because of overstrain due to his strenuous labours of the past few years, and he has my fullest sympathy. But the government of the country must go on, and the Unionist Party must vindicate its position and carry on the government of this country on established lines or something will happen.
Now, what is to be done? I am waiting to hear from ministers of the Union Government to tell us what they propose to do.


Arthur Bliss Copp: They do not know.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: I am waiting to
hear when they intend to resume parliamentary responsibility and to have a Prime Minister in the House who leads the Government, who selects his ministers, who sees that those ministers are elected, and who can make an appeal to our fellow-countrymen who live in the province of Quebec. There never was a period in the history of this country heretofore when that appeal was not made and the Government of the



day was not able to get support from the province of Quebec and also from some of the western provinces. It may be all very well to trifle with this question and attempt to "put it over" and to suggest this and that artifice, but in doing that you get away from the question of responsible Government. Let us come back to responsible Government; and will the House bear with me when I say this: That I am making no personal comment or criticism on the right hon gentleman who has led the House so successfully as head of the Government, and who has made a great place for himself in the history of the conduct of this war. But the King's Government must go on, and it must do so under Parliamentary rules and practice. We are getting away from that. The Prime Minister is not here, and he has not done what the Unionist party have been promising for two years now, ever since they came into office. When they first had Union Government formed, we were promised that later on there would be a reconstruction of the Government. Why is that reconstruction not going on? There is some reason for that, and probably it is owing to the absence of the Prime Minister. If that be the case, I say that the responsibility is. on this Union Government to correct what is wrong and to try to return to that responsible Government that we have had in this country in the past, but that we do not happen to have at the present moment as we ought, especially now that the war is over. The people want responsible Government. I have been out in the country; I have met the people; I have read the newspapers; I have heard discussions at various public meetings. I saw what took place in Ontario recently when there was an absence of responsible Government there, when not even a caucus of a party was called to see what sort of a policy the Conservative party would have in the provincial election that took place there. And what happened? That party disappeared in a night, because it had failed to call together its friends and the people of Ontario in general to discuss the welfare of the country and the programme under which it proposed to appeal to the people. The same thing may happen in the case of the Dominion if we do not come back to Parliamentary practice and if we do not have in this House a responsible Prime Minister leading the House, forming his Government, having his Government elected, and seeing that all the country is fairly represented in the administration that attempts to carry on the affairs of the country.

There are many other questions that I should like to bring up on this occasion. I should like to discuss the question of public ownership of railways. I should like to discuss our future relations with the Empire. I should like to discuss what I know or rather what I do not know about the commitments that have been made in connection with the Imperial Conferences that have been held in the old land. We, the people of Canada, do not know what has taken place there; we do not know what commitments have been made in connection with those conferences, and we have not our Prime Minister here to tell us what took place at those conferences although he was one of the chief actors at them. While the war was a great success, I should like to know whether we shared in the proper responsibility of that war, and I should also like to know something about our position in the League of Nations.
I hope to be able to discuss that later on I should like to discuss the fiscal policy of this country. I have heard a good deal about it here to-day, and I heard the hon. member for Lethbridge ,(Mr. Buchanan) and another hon. member speak about a measure of redistribution that should take place next year. I do not want to see an election in this country until that measure of redistribution has been put through this House; but when it has been put through, I want to see representation by population as the groundwork principle in that redistribution. We have not had it. I represent in this House about 100,000 people; some time ago, I represented many more than that, and my constituency is growing rapidly. We ought to have in this House three votes from that constituency in settling the policy of the country and in maintaining Parliamentary and democratic institutions in Canada. You cannot have democratic institutions in this country unless you have representation by population. The United States have that, if it exists anywhere. We must have it here, and I want to appeal especially to my friends from the West who were saying here to-day, and justly saying, that there should be full representation from the West in this House before we have an election. I want to see full representation for every section of the country, for Quebec, for Ontario, as well as for the West. I bring this up merely because I desire to say that that is another topic that I should like to discuss in this House, but I am going to leave all those questions for another opportunity. The debate is not over; and while it has wandered

far afield, and while the leader of the Opposition has asked for an election, a proposition which I cannot see my way to accept, what I want to see is a return to responsible Parliamentary Government, no matter who makes the sacrifice in order that it may come back. Especially do I appeal to the members of the Government and to its supporters to see that we come back to a condition of affairs where the Prime Minister is in the country at the head of the Government, where he is reconstructing the Government as he promised to do and as the people expect him to do. I say this all the time remembering that he is ill, but nevertheless, the Government must go on. In all fairness and in the most respectful way I direct the attention of the Government of the daj/ and my fellow members of the House, especially those who have supported Union Government, to try to come back to the principle of responsible Government and to show that the Unionist party is able to strengthen itself, to select ministers, to elect them in the country, and to put forward a policy necesary for reconstruction. If we do not do that-and I <am going to speak very plainly, and I think I can see what is going on-we shall have cabals in the ministry instead of leadership, instead of a progressive, policy. Every one can see signs of these things. Unfortunately, those who wish to depart from the observance and maintenance of responsible Parliamentary Government in this country seem to be ministers of the Grown.
I hope the ministers of the Crown will realize their double responsibility and come back to responsible Parliamentary Government, and have the Government reconstructed. Let us have a Prime Minister in his place who will assume responsibility and lead the House and the country in thi3 great duty of reconstruction.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Does my hon. friend suggest that the Prime Minister should resign?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not make
any suggestion at the moment. I say that the Prime Minister wished to resign and did resign, and probably that is his disposition now, but apparently some of his friends wish to keep him in an irresponsible position.


Mr. JOHN BEST (Dufferin):: Seeing
that the hon. member has attacked the Prime Minister, would he be good enough to say whether he has attended one-fifth as many sittings of this House as the 91
Prime Minister during the last five years, during which he has been drawing his full indemnity?


William Findlay Maclean: I have not attacked the Prime Minister. I have the greatest respect for him. Many a time has he asked my advice, and I have been pleased to give it to him. Many a time I have spoken on the platform with him in constituencies and helped him to elect his candidates. I have not always been in this ' House as much as I should have been, but I have been in this House a good deal, and whenever I have spoken it has been on a real question. I am speaking on a real question to-day, one that is uppermost in the minds of the people of this country, and uppermost in the minds of the ministry, many of whom are anxious to lead a way out of the situation. I am not calling for the Prime Minister's resignation. I am calling for the observance of the principle of responsible parliamentary government. I have heard a good deal around this House and have seen a great deal in the newspapers about this very question. I saw it in the Montreal papers, for instance.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):: Might I ask my hon. friend whether he was in his seat to-day and heard the statement of the leader of the Government (Sir George Foster) in reference to the absence of the Prime Minister, and if so, whether he approves of the statement that was made?


William Findlay Maclean: I heard the statement.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What objections have you to it?


William Findlay Maclean: The objections
will be removed when we return to responsible parliamentary government. That is all I want. We have not had responsible parliamentary government in this country, I must tell the hon. gentleman.


Henri Sévérin Béland: , What do you suggest should be done?


William Findlay Maclean: I am calling attention to the situation. Perhaps we shall have a further discussion of it. I am discussing a real question, and I believe I am speaking for the people of Canada today. I am passing no reflections wftatso-ever on the right hon. gentleman who leads the House. I am simply trying to speak for the people of this country on a matter

of paramount importance to them. The disturbance following the war is great, the dislocations are many, and all sorts of new conditions have come into existence. One underlying principle of our constitution is that of responsible parliamentary government, and I say that we have got some way away from that in this House. During the war the country was ruled by Orders in Council, and very properly so perhaps; other nations had to do it, but now we should return to responsible government and get on with a policy of reconstruction. There is many a minister in the Government to-day who I would like to see giving most of his time to framing policies of reconstruction to lay before the House. Any such measures will have any little support I may be able to give them. Again I say, I arose in my place here today to ask that the Unionist Government come back at the very earliest possible moment to responsible parliamentary government and bring forward the necessary legislation for the reconstruction of the country. I do not think theie should be an election, if it can be avoided, until there has been a numbering of the people. That could begin on the first of April next year and be completed thirty days thereafter and a report made, on which a redistribution measure could be based and introduced in the following May, then with a new Franchise Act and a new Redistribution measure, let there be an appeal to the people in a general election.
Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labeile). (translation) : We are meeting this year in our new Parliament Building which adorns the historic hill of the Capital, resplendent like a gothic marvel of old. Fifty years ago, Mr. Speaker, the representatives of the Canadian people were meeting here for the first time after Confederation.
On that occasion, the representatives of the people came from all the provinces and there were on the ministerial benches the two minsters representing the two great races in this country. Those ministers had joined their efforts to make Canada a great country, a united and prosperous country. They gave the first administration we had in this Dominion the name of Macdonald-Cartier, a name never to be forgotten. If I recall this happening of bygone days, it is to show by what spirit the Fathers of Confederation were prompted and. at the same time, to underline the present policy of the Unionist party, which has become occasionally the successor of the former

Governments, of the Macdonald-Cartier Government, and which is, nevertheless, driving the country to disunion and to ruin.
In 1867, we, in the province of Quebec, were associated with the English provinces of 'Canada and put on an equal footing with them by a federative compact assented to by the 'Imperial Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In this agreement the rights of the first pioneers, the rights of my ancestors were preserved; they could say that the survival of all their rights, customs and traditions was secured by this Act.
When the negotiations previous to Confederation took place, Macdonald was not in favour of a Federative Act, he would Rave preferred a Legislative union; but Cartier, whose opinion finally prevailed, wished the provinces to retain their full autonomy, while Canada would be ruled by a central federal power. The first meeting wjhich took place under the Confederation Act carried with itself a meaning far different from and far more eloquent than that of our present meeting. In 1867, both races *were represented in the Cabinet, which took pleasure in asserting this dual character to the extent of styling itself the Macdonald-Cartier administration. Therefore though the House of Commons of 1867 was smaller than that of 1920, it embraced more, because it was taking in, amid the cheers of the people, a ministry, it was taking in members who came from all the provinces and by whom all nationalities were represented. On that occasion, Cartier might well say to the Dominion, as he did " For more than a century, the British flag, which bears the name of Union, has unfurled its folds on the horizon of Canada. That century, now elapsed, was rather marked by quarrels between the two races which are going to constitute a new people, the Canadian people. That protracted strife has known hours of conflict more cruel than others, but the secular contact between the two races seems to have finally resulted in creating a better conception of their respective worth and, as a sequence, a new spirit, born of a friendly understanding which prevails at last. In time, we shall have a country where there is neither victor nor vanquished, neither a superior nor an inferior race. We have Confederation accepted at last by the Mother Country and by the colony. Confederation will give us a Canadian country, a country which will be really united, for on the occasion of an event of this kind, the union of the minds cannot be but a word, an empty word, it

carries with itself a cordiality which will make a people endowed with the gifts of the two most glorious nations of the world and, therefore, a people which, young though it be as yet, will undertake, in a masterly way, to carry out its destinies."
On the other hand, Macdonald withstood, in the full measure of his might, the brunt of the attacks of the few British statesmen, more enthusiastic than clearsighted, who required the help of the colony in the wars of England with the nations of the world, his answer being that Canada was under no obligation to contribute money or men to enterprises with respect to which she had no say. How far we are, Mr. Speaker, from the spirit of those leaders all engrossed by the problems of Canadian politics and devoting the whole of their intelligence and the very best of their heart to the realization of the ideal which had inspired the Fathers of Confederation:	"Make Canada
- a united, happy and prosperous country." The policy of the Government, as expressed in the speech from the Throne, deals hut with external affairs, matters concerning the world at large, which may offer some interest to the Allies now that the peace treaty has been signed, which may have a direct interest for London, Paris or Washington, for instance, hut those questions are of such a nature as to have us, citizens of this country, perfectly indifferent. It might perhaps be interesting to hear it mentioned in the speech from the throne, among the great deeds of the Government, that a commercial treaty has been signed with the most powerful nations; but what is to us the signature of a peace treaty with Bulgaria or with Turkey? Have we ever declared war to those far distant countries? And was war ever declared to us by those countries?
I am sure the Government do not think we are gullible enough to believe them when they say that we should be glad of these signatures being there because they mean a diplomatic success for an ambassador of the Canadian nation. Has not the Government anything besides matters of foreign policy of which they could assume the merit in the Speech from the Throne? Have we become, perchance, an independent state? I should be glad of it, for it means the crowning of a people's legitimate aspirations toward complete autonomy and freedom. But nobody here spoke of breaking our colonial bonds and so far Great Britain has not notified us that starting from a certain date, say from the coming into power of the Union Government for instance, we should become an independent and free country, not a sister nation, hut an absolutely independent and self-governing nation. *	'
Fortunately we know by experience what a speech from the Throne means for a Government. It is an official document in which no mention is made of the questionable legislation which the Government in-tendg enacting-as evidenced at the last session when they brought up at the last minute the monster bill for the acquisition of the Grand Trunk

but which gives the Government credit- for foreign legislation to which they never contributed, or expresses delight at the occurring of events which we may look upon with indifference but which however are a disguise for the shameful sacrificing of our autonomy to imperialism.
Imperialism, Mr. Speaker, is the enemy. It is on account of imperialism that our national debt reached the enormous figure of $2,000,000,000 and that nothing seems to be able to stop its rise which is leading this country to disaster. It is also on account of imperialism that our expenses, including the cost of administration, the large sum of interest on our loans and the necessary funds for the soldiers' pensions, are continuously widening the abyss of our indebtedness which taxation is unable'to fill. That is not all the harm that Imperialism will cause this country. It is bound to lead us to militarism.
The League of Nations finds it impossible to control the war-like preparations of the Allies. The Great Powers have never been so anxious to keep up and to increase their military force than -since the signing of peace: Great Britain and the United States, their navy; France, her army.
What is the secret mission on . which the representative of the British navy, Lord Jellicoe, was sent to this Government? What new contribution did the Government pledge to Lord Jellicoe? There is nothing in the speech from the Throne about it and the acting leader of the Government remains silent on the matter. But deeds are more eloquent than words. The very warm and cordial reception given to the admiral- thanks to which our Prime Minister was taken aboard the flagship to be carried away to other colonies of the Empire as a living mark of our subjection-the silence observed by the Government and the coinminatory stand taken by its leader, are so many facts which are much more telling than any speech from the Throne could be.
Canada is being threatened now more than ever by this dangerous policy and

active form of imperialism which will hind our future welfare, our resources and our children to satisfy the ambition of a country devoted to militarism. [DOT]
I am happy to be a member of the political association which,, at its last session, held in Ottawa last summer, did not hesitate to adopt as an important plank of its platform: That the constitution of Canada shall not in any way be modified as regards our relationship to Great Britain, without the people being previously consulted.
We, the descendants of the discoverers and pioneers of this country, as well as the newcomers who wish to make of this fertile land their home, were not entrusted by Providence with the task of perpetuating on this American continent the causes of conflicts which are keeping the old European countries continuously afire, but we were asked to devote our efforts to the beneficent works of. peace, to work with a legitimate emulation for the development of our immense resources and to establish here a free, contented and prosperous country.
There is another question which though it does not appear in the speech from the Throne, hovers however in the mind of the Government. I am referring to divorce. At a previous session, the Government had already overlooked an attempt to introduce a bill to make divorce easier. Owing to persistent rumors which have been circulating even in this Parliament, there is some apprehension that the Government will favour such anti-christian legislation.
The country is bound to suffer from such a law jf it be adopted by this Parliament. Divorce is the greatest menace to the maintenance of family ties, and the family is the basic social institution.
At this dangerous period where revolutions are about to break out, where the spirit of bolshevism penetrates and spreads almost everywhere, and where strife between classes, animated by passions which are a menace to public order, voiced even in this Parliament, it is time that we should prepare to safeguard the interests of society and see that they are preserved from the scourge of divorce. Christian minds and orderly people understand that such legislation would be most dangerous. Are we not,, then, in a Christian country? The Fathers of Confederation themselves had foreseen the disastrous consequences which society would derive from a law by which divorce had been made easy. They have shown toleration for it, but at the same time they have rendered it as difficult as

possible at every turn, surrounding the proceedings with all kinds of precautions and intrusting the responsibility of the decree solely to that honourable and revered body which personifies the wisdom of the nation. Such toleration by the constitution may lead to' abuse. I would suggest that the British North America Act be amended so as to make divorce an impossibility, in this country.
The Government prides itself of its recent participation in the first international labour congress. If it be an honour for the Government to send representatives to a conference of that kind, *where they will meet the spokesmen of capital and of labour, let us wish that this participation may procure such amount of experience as is necessary to solve the anguishing problem of labour in this country.
But who will supply the generating principle of happy solutions in social life? I have the honour to belong to that class of men who believe that this problem can be solved only in the light of Christian principles. Such solutions, obtained through a recourse to the great principle of social truth,, with which the 'Church is possessed, are yet the most durable and the most practical. The revered leaders of our church have had very much at heart, for a long time, the happiness of the workingmen, of all the men who toil; but one of them has dealt with the social question, in our age, with more striking effect than the others. His authority was recognized by all the statesmen and his advice was followed, and happily so,, in many countries. The great Pope Leo XIII, surnamed the workingmen's Pope, gave the universe the encyclical letter " Berum novarum ", The document was greeted in all the industrial cities, as the charter of the social world, that is, as a full treatise on that subject,, as a symposium of the reforms which the working classes of the world have the right to seek for the betterment of their condition and the welfare of their families as well. It is in the light of those two principles so marvelously just and true, that so many national and catholic trade unions were organized in our province of Quebec. Whenever those associations have sought to assert themselves publicly among the working classes of Canada, they have invariably been spurned by this Government.
I pray this Government, as I would particularly pray the hon. minister of Labour if he had a seat in this House, to give a just attention to the legitimate claims

of those bodies of workingmen in my province. You will perhaps find, in the useful work which they have already accomplished, some guiding principles which may help you in your future legislation with respect to labour.
Now, Mr. Speaker, much has been said .about a particular item of the speech from the Throne relating to a new Franchise Act,' which leads us to discuss the opportunity of a new general election in this country.	[DOT]
I was amused, a moment ago, to hear the reflections made by some hon. members on the other side of the House. They would have us believe that they have no fear of the electorate, but they lay down as a principle that we should differ, as long as possible, to consult the people. I think that is a false principle and that it is impossible to wait till the next census has been taken, before we have a general election in this country. The last census was taken in 1911 and the next one will be taken in 1921. That does not mean that the election may be arranged in such a way as to satisfy the claims expressed by the members from the Canadian West and take place during the year 1921, because the delays necessary to complete the work must be taken into account, and therefore, a general election could not be held before the year 1923. What is just and what the people is expecting is that a general election should take place as soon as possible. There seems to be a unanimous chorus of protests not only on this side of the House, but on the other side as well, to the effect that the affairs of the country should be administered by another government.
Quite often and how emphatically have we been told that the present Government was returned in 1917 for the period of the war, that this was a Government formed so as to win the rvar and styled a Union Government.
Now that war is over and peace is signed, that we enter upon an era of reconstruction, the citizen of Canada are bound to call upon their leaders to lay their policy before them so that they may choose their representatives. The present Government is inclined to wait until the next census before holding general elections. General elections woud be as fair now as in 1923. The people might avail themselves of their privileges during 1920 and again during 1923; they would be at liberty to choose their representatives and their rulers.
As for us, we can see no reason for the delaying of the elections on the part of the Administration.
In the province which it is my privilege to inhabit, where we are under the rule of a Liberal Government, they do not wait, like the Conservatives and the Tories, until the end of a parliament to hold new elections ; they know how to respect the rights and bow to the will of the people, every three years, or every four years at the utmost. The Union Government should follow such an example; and we on this side of the House would be only too willing that general elections should be held as soon as possible.
The old walls of the first parliamentary buildings of Confederation had witnessed many events redounding to the glory of our Canadian statesmen. Indeed, within those walls flourished such men as Cartier, Macdonald, Mackenzie, Mowat, Chapleau and Laurier, and many others, and I must be content with mentioning only those who have departed, omitting the men who are still in active life on either side of this House. It is no part of these remarks to extol what they have done. But let us feelingly. remember them and hail their patriotism.
The last and greatest of that line of illustrious men used to say: "The twentieth century will be the century of Canada." Like him, let us have faith in the future of this country. Let the new walls of these precincts forever bear through ages the stamp of events which shall conduce to the greatness and success of our common country.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. JOHN WESLEY EDWARDS (Fron-tenac):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) this afternoon, you will have noticed, mixed with his tears and lamentations on the loss of responsible and representative government and the decay of democracy several earnest expressions of hope, together with the utterance of jl desire to speak on this, that and the other subject and to deal with matters of various descriptions. The trouble with the hon. member for South York, who, as every one knows, is possessed of a very fertile brain, is that he does not attend the House often enough to have an opportunity to give expression to these excellent ideas of his.

\
Consequently they accumulate and become an incubus upon the hon. gentleman. We are all, I am sure, in perfect sympathy with that hon. member in his expressions of opinion with regard to representative government. These are good words; they have a pleasant sound. The word " democracy " also, which unfortunately is often misused and sometimes much abused, nevertheless is equally well-sounding, and no person can use it with greater unction and force than the hon. member for South York. It is true that Cabinet ministers, by virtue of the position they occupy, are clothed with special responsibilities; but it is likewise true that members of Parliament who are elected to represent the people in the House of Commons have also certain responsibilities to their constituencies, one of which responsibilities-a most important - one- is that they shall be as regular as possible in their attendance and shall give as much time as they can to the business of the country. I say this, Mr. Speaker, merely because I think that possibly a criticism of the absence of the Prime Minister or of any other Cabinet minister would come with rather better grace from any other hon. gentleman in this House than the hon. member for South York. I do not know whether the statement is correct or not, and I will not attempt to vouch for the truth of it, but I have been told that on more than one occasion, notwithstanding the fact that the Parliamentary Guide shows that the hon. gentleman has been elected for a great many years, it has happened that the officers at the doors have been changed and others appointed and the hon. member at such times has had to be identified before being allowed to enter the Chamber, so infrequent was his attendance.
I have listened, as I am sure all hon. gentlemen have listened, with a great deal of pleasure and interest to the speeches delivered by the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton, N.B., (Mr. Caldwell), and by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould). I hope I shall not be misunderstood when I say that I think that the hon. gentleman who represents the constituency in New Brunswick is a vast improvement on his predecessor. Still, I trust the hon. gentleman will not infer from this statement that I do not think there is room for some improvement in himself so far as his political views are concerned. I do not by any means want him to rest complacently under such an impression.
Now, Sir, in the speech of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie JCing) the other day, that hon. gentleman bewailed

the fact that there had been some delay in calling on elections, and he waxed eloquent in referring to the lapse of time between the occurrence of the vacancy and the calling of the election to fill it. He drew the attention of the House to what he described as the crime against the constituency in its being unrepresented in the House of Commons, and naturally, of course, he attached the blame to the Administration. I do not think that it just occurred to the hon. gentleman when he was speaking that when the Government of this country was led by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier that gentleman was elected in two constituencies and, if I mistake not, sat for two constituencies in Quebec from 1908 to 1911. I believe also that Sir Rodolphe Forget sat for twb constituencies in Quebec during the same period. Now, the remedy lay in the hands of the Laurier Government, of which my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) was a distinguished -and shining light even at that time, and it probably did not occur to the hon. gentleman that he might with propriety direct some of his remarks to some of those whose -seats would be near him if they were in the House. The former Postmaster General in the Laurier Administration, (Mr. Lemieux) I think I am right in saying, sits for two -constituencies -at the present time. Why doe-s not the leader of the Opposition get busy and put a stop to that sort of thing? It would put him in -a more consistent position when finding fault in this House with the Government for -not bringing on an election in the constituency of Elgin, which has been vacant only -a few days. This, however, is something which does not seem to occur to the hon. gentleman -as calling for so-me attention on his part. The hon. gentleman also tol-d the Government, and I am sure they were very much pleased to be given the advice from such a distinguished -source, that by-election-s were of great- service to an administration -as indicating the trend of publip opinion on public events. But the -hon. gentleman in that statement was exhibiting a modesty of which I really did not think him capable. He might have -said that a by-election was also extremely useful to the leader of -an opposition in indicating the same thing. Perhaps he will allow me to- remind him that there was -a by-election out in Assiniboia. We had -a -most eloquent speech this afternoon -from the representative of that constituency (Mr. Gould), who bears a very attractive name. But apparently, in

the mind of the leader of the Opposition, "All is not gold that glitters."


Mr. McMASTER:: Oh.
Mr.' EDWARDS: At all events,-and this will be particularly interesting especially to the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-M-aster)-this afternoon the member for Assiniboia, in answer to a question from this side of the House, said that he did not believe in the principle of protection, either high or low; further, that he had never believed in that principle and did not suppose that he ever would believe in it. I think I am quoting the hon. gentleman correctly. I say that that statement of the hon. member for Assiniboia will be particularly interesting to the prophet from Brome, who has lately on several occasions posed in this House a.s an out-and-out free-trader. Why, then, did the leader of the Opposition send the hon. member for Brome and the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) out to Assiniboia in order if possible to defeat this gentleman, who assuredly goes as far in the direction of free trade as any man can go? Why was it that ,a Liberal candidate, a man who occupied 'a Cabinet position in the Saskatchewan Government, was brought out against this gentleman? Evidently the leader of the Opposition canvassed, the situation, and perhaps had heard something -about the free-trade proclivities of the hon. gentleman who represents this constituency now, -and said to himself: " No, that man wont do; he is too much of a free-trader for our side.	We cannot go so far."
At all events he sends these two gentlemen out to Assiniboia to defeat, if they possibly could, the hon. gentleman who now represents that constituency. It seems to me one of the cruelest things that ever happened in public life, that a man holding the views of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), who has denounced protection as vociferously as his former leaders did in the eighteen years before they came into power, should have been chosen to go out there to try to defeat an out-and-out free-trader. The hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) suggested the number of votes that had been added to his majority by a visit to his constituency. The hon. member for Assiniboia has not been good enough to give us any information as to how many votes he thinks the hon. members for Brome and South Renfrew added to his majority in that election. Perhaps, when we become better acquainted, the
hon. gentleman may open out and give us his candid opinion in regard to the matter.
It seems to me that we can gain something else from the attitude of the leader of the Opposition in moving this amendment, and that the election in Assiniboia has a bearing upon it. Certainly the leader of the Opposition sent his man out there to carry that constituency for the Liberal party. There was no consideration for the farmer movement at that particular time from that particular source but, when he got the returns showing over 5,000 of a majority against his candidate, notwithstanding the magnificent eloquence and arguments which had been advanced, no doubt, by the hon. member for Brome, to say nothing of what was added by the hon. member for South Renfrew, he had that majority staring him in the face. What was he to do? Wait until the next census was taken when the western provinces would have about twenty members more than they have now? No; there was no hope in that for him in so far as the last election returns were concerned. He had nothing to hope for and so he brought in this amendment with the idea of bringing on the election, if he possibly could, before the West had another twenty members to send down in opposition to him. There is no other conclusion to come to.
But Mr. Speaker, let me just say a word in regard to this amendment as it appears to me. If you look at the amendment you will notice that the leader of the Opposition calls particular attention to the absence of the right hon. the Prime Minister of this country (Sir Robert Borden). He makes the absence of the Prime Minister one of the reasons-in fact if I read the amendment correctly the main reason-for moving the amendment in the House. I venture to say that, under the circumstances, having regard to the fact that the Prime Minister is away at the present time in an attempt to regain some of the health which he formerly possessed but which was shattered by his devotion to Canada and the Empire in the most trying time of thei r history, there is nothing else in the resolution, worded as it is, than a reflection, and a serious reflection, on the Prime Minister. We on this side of the House-and, 1 venture to say, many hon. gentlemen on the other side-hope most sincerely that the Ihime Minister will be entirely restored to health. We hope that the word given to us by the right hon. the acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) this afternoon

may prove true, and prove true sooner than he anticipated or mentioned. We on ;his side of the House hope that within a few weeks, or within a month or two, the right hon. gentleman (Sir Robert Bor den) will be restored to health, that he will come back to his place in this House, will once more place his hand upon the helm of the ship of state and direct its affairs. And, hoping that, I for one, and many more in this House, are going to vote against the amendment because we want a chance to see that hope realised. Take it as you will, the vote on that amendment means that those who vote against the amendment are giving expression to the hope that the Prime Minister will recover his health and come back to this House, and those who vote for the amendment are giving expression to the hope that the Prime Minister will not come back to resume his duties in this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No; no.


John Wesley Edwards: That is exactly what it means. What else does it mean? That is what it means in practice. You cannot disassociate the practical side of it from the wording of the amendment. It means that and nothing else.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I would ask the hon. gentleman if he noted the one word " regrettable " before the word " absence " with reference to the Prime Minister?


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, I did note the one word " regrettable,'' but I have lived long enough in this world to know what uses and abuses can be made of the English language.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Wesley Edwards: I am glad to see that sentiment so heartily endorsed and by none more than by the hon. member who represents East Quebec (Mr. Lapointe), because no man has abused the English language worse than he has. I do not attach very much importance to the word " regrettable" as coming from the leader of the Opposition, and I will tell the hon. gentleman why. Throughout his speech he casts reflections upon the Prime Minister and upon the Government which are not borne out by the facts, as I shall show before I sit down.
The leader of the Opposition complained that there is no Cabinet representation from the Maritime Provinces. May I remind the

hon. gentleman that the Prime Minister comes from the Maritime provinces, represents a constituency in the Maritime Provinces and that he is a member of the Government yet whether the hon. gentleman thinks he is or not? That, I think, disposes of his statement that there is no Cabinet representation from the Maritime Provinces. But he went farther; he said there was no representation in the Cabinet of the French-Canadians of the province of Quebec. Some hon. gentleman asked him when he had made that remark: " What about the Postmaster General? "-and here is what the leader of the Opposition said: " Well, sir, we will not say that the Postmaster General represents the French-Canadians." His running mate, the hon. member for East Quebec (Mr. Lapointe) frequently, during the speech of the leader of the Opposition, interjected remarks just to call attention to the fact that there were other leaders besides the nominal, recognized one, on that side of the House. The hon. member from Quebec East said tliat Hon. Mr. Blondin could not get ten votes in any riding in his province. On what does the hon. gentleman base that conclusion? The leader of the Opposition was good enough to point out that Hon. Mr. Blondin, the Postmaster General, was defeated in one constituency in Quebec by 1,247 votes, and in another constituency in which he ran, by 6,623 votes. Those are very telling figures, but the leader of the Opposition might also have added that on the same day that Mr. Blondin was defeated in Laurier-Outremont by 1,247 votes, he himself was defeated in North York by 1,078 votes. While it is true that the Postmaster General was in a minority in the constituency of Champlain of 6,623 votes it is also true that the former great leader of the Liberal party, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was defeated in the city of Ottawa on the same day by 5,258 votes-


Mr. MAROIL:: That is not creditable to the city of Ottawa.


John Wesley Edwards: -and the hon. gentleman might have also said that while the Postmaster General polled 6,196 votes in a certain constituency in the province of Quebec, th^leader of the Opposition only polled 2,870 votes in North York, whilst his brilliant side partner (Mr. Lapointe) only polled 3,453 votes. If we are going to take the votes polled by a candidate in an election as an expression of public endorsation, or of public opinion, I have this to say: That even in the province of Quebec, where the

tide runs strongly, I admit, against any person who favoured conscription and the Military Service Act, nevertheless the Postmaster General did succeed in polling in one constituency in that province as many votes as the present leader of the Opposition and the gentleman from East Quebec who is associated with him taken together.
May I add a word or two further, and inform my hon. friend (Mr. King)-and I do so because this is not the first time that there have been flings at the Postmaster General-that Hon. Mr. Blondin polled more votes than thirty-two men who now occupy' seats in this House from the province of Quebec, of whom thirty-one sit on the Opposition benches. So the Postmaster General polled more votes and had a greater endorsation of public opinion in that regard than did the thirty-one hon. gentlemen in question.
The leader of the Opposition in the course of his fault-finding says that the Postmaster General does not represent the French Canadians 'of the province of Quebec, and that they have no representation in this Government. I will grant at once that Hon. Mr. Blondin does not represent the great majority of the voters of that province, but I will say this in justification of the appointment of Mr. Blondin to, the Cabinet and his elevation to the Upper Chamber: If ever there was a time in the history of Canada when a Government was justified in making two such appointments that justification existed when such recognition was accorded to Hon. Mr. Blondin. There were a number of people in the province of Quebec who did not agree with my hon. friend across the way who has just given utterance to a laugh. That hon. gentleman and other members sitting with him were opposed to the Military Voters Act and the other legislation along that line which the Government caused to be passed. But looking at the returns from the province of Quebec which I have before me it will be found that notwithstanding the fact that the majorities in most of the Quebec constituencies were very large and therefore strongly expressive of disapproval of the Government and the course which it followed, a careful examination of the returns will show that there were thousands and tens of thousands of voters in the province of Quebec who thought just as the Government and Mr. Blondin thought; and in appointing Mr. Blondin to the Cabinet and to the Senate the Government were according recognition to the thousands of men in Quebec who were bold and courageous enough to come out in defence of their principles and for the maintenance of Canada's honour.
The matters to which I have referred the leader of the Opposition might very well 'have left alone.	After all what
did the vote in the last general election mean? It was a test of public opinion and the issue was very plain. The issue was whether we should hearken to the appeal our boys overseas who were putting , in four times the " hours and four times the work in the trenches that they should have done. The question was whether we should send them the help they were asking for. Hon. Mr. Blondin took the ground that that help should be sent, and he received in one constituency over six thousand votes in support of his attitude. I know perfectly well that the stand which he took does not correspond with the view held by the leader of the Opposition, but I venture to say that the attitude and the policy of the Postmaster General will be endorsed by the general public of Canada to a far greater extent than the attitude taken by the leader of the Opposition. That hon. gentleman has told us that the War-time Elections Act was a most infernal piece of legislation.
'Some hon. GENTLEMEN: Hear, hear.
Mr. EDWARD'S: I expected that statement would be given such an endorsation from hon. gentlemen opposite as it has received, but may I ask one or two questions in regard to it. The leader of the Opposition has asserted, and he has correctly voiced the opinions of the hon. gentlemen around him who shout " hear, hear," that the War-time Elections Act was an infernal piece of legislation. I ask why was it so denominated? Was it because the Act gave a vote to the women whose husbands lie buried in Flanders? Did that make the legislation referred to too "infernal" in its character? Was it an infernal piece of legislation because it gave a vote to the sister of the boy who was in Belgium or France doing his bit and doing the bit of lots of fellows who should have been there helping him? Is that what makes the legislation " infernal?" I ask again, why did the hon. gentleman call the law in question an infernal piece of legislation? There were two things which it did. It gave a vote to women in this country whose relatives- sons, or fathers or brothers-were overseas fighting for Canada and the Empire. I challenge the leader of the Opposition to rise in his place now and say that he be-

lieves that that particular feature of the Act was " infernal." He will not and dare not say it. Neither dare he open his mouth in regard to the matter for fear of offending some of those gentlemen who shouted "hear, hear" when he designated the Act in question as a piece of infernal legislation. Then the other feature of the Act was this,- it took the vote from certain people in this country.	From whom? From certain
aliens whose sons or relatives were in France and Flanders on the fighting line and killing our own Canadian boys. Is that why the War-time Elections Act is called an " infernal" piece of legislation? I know of no other reason.
Those are the two salient points of the Act. What has the hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition to say in regard to [DOT]that? The issue, I say again, was clear and distinct. There is no doubt at all that the question put to the people at that election was: Shall we conscript our men and 6end them overseas to help in the fighting? Imagine putting that question to an alien in this country whose son or brother perhaps was in the fighting line of the enemy! Imagine that man going into the polling booth and saying anything but "No, of course I won't vote to send more men over there to fight against my own flesh and blood" ! What else could you expect him to say?
The Act was manifestly fair, and to no people in the country was it fairer than to those aliens from whom it removed the franchise for the time being. We asked nothing of them in the way of equal responsibility as citizens in fighting for the life of this country. We merely asked them to step aside for the time being, so far as that election was concerned, and let the people whose sons and brothers were overseas risking their lives for Canada to say whether further help should or should not be sent. And yet this is what the leader of the Opposition terms "an infernal piece of legislation."
But, carried away by the force of his own eloquence the hon. gentleman aiso attacks the Military Voters' Act. I desire to pay some attention to that for a moment, for in referring to that Act he implied that it was even worse, if anything, than the War-time Elections Act. Let me quote his own words:
It 'has been openly stated In this House, and it will not be denied by hon. gentlemen opposite, that as a consequence of that legislation-that is, the Military Voters' Act

whole bundles of votes of soldiers overseas- votes by bundles-were taken and put into this riding, and into that riding, and into another riding, at the instance of some com-

mittee that was in the confidence of the Administration.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear.


John Wesley Edwards: That is the statement of the hon. gentleman. I hear a little timid voice over there breathing out a faint "Hear"-not quite so certain now as he was a little while ago whether he will endorse his leader; the "hear, hears" were very vociferous at an earlier stage, but now he is not quite so certain. Well, I do not blame him for that. I presume that this gentleman with the timid voice was in the House when this matter came up last session when the then leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) was going to do great execution with a certain telegram, which he thought he had and professed to -have, and which fizzled out very badly indeed so far as the hon. gentleman's argument was concerned. But, that aside, the statement is made by a man holding an important position in this country-it does not matter whether the man is very important or not, to hold the position of leader of the Opposition makes a man important-notwithstanding that the statement is made by the leader of a party (though that party is not so big or important as it used to be, and does not show any signs of getting stronger, but no matter, whether it is strong or weak, he is still leader of it as it is) that the soldiers' vote was manipulated in bundles for the benefit of this riding and the other riding. And the hon. gentleman to his right, who was at one time leader of the Opposition . but now has to occupy a secondary place- and see the other fellow draw the salary- the hon. gentleman from Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. D. D. McKenzie), if I mistake not, in his remarks made a similar statement-that there were men in this House who owed their seats to the way in which the soldiers' votes were manipulated.
I have already dealt a good-many hard blows at this assertion, but I am going to ask the indulgence of the Housp while I give it another crack, in the hope that hon. gentlemen will be satisfied that there is absolutely nothing in the statement that the military votes were pooled for the benefit of members on this side of the House.
Let me call attention very briefly to one or two facts, Mr. Speaker, which I am taking from a summary of the general election returns of 1917. I will take first the province of 'Ontario with its ieighty-two seats. How did the overseas voters affect the return of those members? All but four of the eighty-two were elected by the civil vote, to say nothing about the military

vote, and if you give to those four, not the military vote that they polled overseas, but only the same proportion of the vote overseas as they received of the soldier vote at home, every man of them would have a majority.' I think that disposes of that erroneous statement so far as Ontario is concerned.
From the province of Quebec with its sixty-five seats only three members were elected to support Union Government. Who were they? The Hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne), who had 1,446 of a majority of the civil vote-to say nothing at all about the military vote,-and who had 1,957 of a majority on the soldier vote; in other words, had he been so disposed or could he have done so he could have handed his opponent 1,000 soldier votes and still have defeated him by a majority of over 1,400. Will any person then say that a bundle of soldiers' votes effected the election of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries? Then we will take the member for St. Antoine (Sir Herbert Ames), who secured a majority of 1,583 of the civil votes. He' could have given his opponent 1,000 soldier votes and still have had over 1,100 of a majority. Finally we will take the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), who had 2,099 of a majority of the civil votes, and who could have given his opponent 1,000 soldier votes and still have had over 1,930 of a plurality.
So, Sir, we can go on. Take, for instance, the province of Manitoba-and will any, person say that the soldier vote was so manipulated as to elect a member from that province? Why, Mr. Speaker, every Laurier candidate except three in that province lost his deposit, so there was not much chance, I think, of applying that there.
In British Columbia, out of thirteen seats, every member but one could have handed his opponent his entire overseas vote and still won out. If we give the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Peck) only the same proportion or percentage of overseas votes as he obtained of the home vote, he would win out with a majority of 469, and is it not reasonable to suppose that that hon. gentleman should b,e given at least as large a proportion or percentage of the overseas vote as he obtained of the home vote when he was not at home while voting was going on?
Let us take the province of Saskatchewan with sixteen seats, and if you credit every soldier vote to his opponent, that would not deprive any member from Saskatchewan of his seat in this House. The
same thing is true of Alberta with the exception of one seat, Edmonton West. But if we give the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Griesbach) no larger a percentage of overseas votes than he obtained of soldiers' votes at home, where his opponent was right on the job all the time, and hand the rest of his votes over to his opponent, the hon. member still wins out with a majority of 2,288. Therefore, he could give his opponent not only the percentage but another thousand votes and still be elected. That disposes pretty effectively of the statement made by the leader of the Opposition in regard to a manipulation of the overseas votes. There never was a statement made by any hon. gentleman in this House on either side further from the facts than that made the other day by the leader of the Opposition.
I should like to call attention to another little thing which, I am sure, will be extremely interesting to the leader of the Opposition. In the course of his remarks and in his hunting around for some cudgels with which to beat the Government, looking through the speech from the Throne the hon. gentleman finds fault with the paragraph referring to restrictions on the opium traffic. The hon. gentleman says that that is simply dabbling in small affairs. I should be astonished at a remark like that coming from any hon. member, but coming from this particular hon. member it is especially astonishing. Why do I say that? Because probably no other hon. gentleman in this House has been more intimately associated with an investigation of the opium traffic than the hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition. In 1908, the hon. gentleman who was then, I believe, Deputy Minister of Labour, was appointed to go over to England and from there to China to attend an International Conference dealing with this opium question. On that occasion the hon. geAtleman, taking advantage of the opportunity which was afforded to him by the reporters of getting his name into the press, just before he took the steamer at New York, gave an interview in the course of which he said that the only way in which this matter of restricting or doing away with the evils of the opium traffic could be handled was through a conference of the representatives of all the nations concerned. He thought this conference, the one to which he was going, would be unquestionably suc-cussful. How could it be otherwise? With the hon. gentleman there, it was bound to be successful. In March, 1908, he was commissioned to go to England; he went over

and returned about the end of April, and in May he went out to Vancouver and .he issued a report in regard to opium conditions on the Pacific coast. Any person who reads that report will be still more astonished that the man who was so conversant as the hon. gentleman is with the terrible evils of that traffic could speak slightingly of any steps being taken to control, restrict, or put an end to that evil.
I might just incidentally call attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman who was Deputy Minister of Labour and who was slated for Minister of Labour, was away all the session of 1909. Yes, this same gentleman was not in the House at all; his constituency was not represented on the floor of Parliament during all the session of 1909. He was away, I will not say hobnobbing with the Chinese, but over there in Shanghai and other parts of China very properly looking into the evils of the opium traffic. But he was away from Parliament, and he was an important member of Parliament, and soon to become still more important by being a member of the Government. These little things the hon. gentleman has forgotten. In the multiplicity of things which crowd his grey matter, I suppose we should not be too hard on him if he forgets some of them. But for fear he has already forgotten this matter I must remind him, when he condemns the Government for having Cabinet ministers who are not members of this House, that Sir Richard Cartwright, Hon. Richard Scott, Hon. Oliver Mowat, Hon. David Mills, all held portfolios in the Laurier Administration and occupied seats in the Senate, there being no opportunity of questioning them on the floor of this Chamber. A similar condition of affairs is a terrible thing at the present time because we are here and the hon. gentleman is there. But when he sat as a minister of the Crown in the Laurier Administration and some of his colleagues sa+ as ministers of the Crown in the Senate, that was perfectly all right and no criticism came from the hon. gentleman. Then responsible and representative government was not in danger at all. The hon. gentleman at that time was sitting to the right of the Speaker, and he was a Cabinet minister and, of course, he was a host in himself. What did it matter that three or four Cabinet ministers were away while Mackenzie King sat as a Cabinet minister to the right of the Speaker? He was capable of doing not only his own work, but that of half a dozen others.
[iMr. Edwards.]
There are just one or two other things to which I should like to refer, but I am not goftig to take very many minutes in doing so. My principal object in rising was to show, as I think I have conclusively and clearly shown, that the remarks of the leader of the Opposition with regard to the. War-time Elections Act and the Military Voters' Act were remarks which come with bad grace, especially from him, and that his statements in regard to manipulation is not borne out by facts. I have the facts here, in support of my statement which I challenge any person to dispute.
I want to offer a criticism of the Government. We on this- side of the House feel we have a right to offer criticism where criticism is needed, and in this case I think it is due. Very briefly, my criticism is this: I want it distinctly understood that I as one of the members of this House of English descent think that the Government of this country should take action, and at once, to stop the Hearst papers from circulating throughout the Dominion. There may be some people in this country who do not object to the lies and dirt which are being circulated throughout the Dominion by this man Hearst, but I as one of the Anglo-Saxon race and the son of an Englishman resent it most strongly. I think it is a shame and disgrace to the Dominion for these papers to be allowed for one minute to circulate through the mails of this country. Let us. at least attempt to be consistent. I have no sympathy with agitators like this man Ivens and some of those other fellows in Winnipeg, but what in Heaven's name is the good of putting Ivens behind the bars for giving expression to views which are likely to lead to riot, when we permit the Hearst publications to come into this country and sow seeds which cannot bring forth any other crop than disloyalty and disunion. I say that is not consistent, and I condemn as strongly as I can t)ie lack of action on the part of this Government in not putting a stop to this sort of thing.
This is not the time to go into a detailed discussion of tariff matters. The proper time, as you, Sir, pointed out, to discuss the tariff is when the Budget is under consideration, and I shall therefore refrain from making any reference to the tariff until that time comes.
Before taking my seat, may I say in all kindness of spirit that I was sorry to hear the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Gauthier) speak as he did the other day. He saw fit to tell this House that

one of the great provinces of this Dominion was simply waiting for its " hour." Well, there was a time some years ago when a certain man and a certain people toasted " The Day " and waited for its coming. I did not think I would ever live to hear a man get up in this House.and say that one of the great provinces of Confederation, if not toasting " The Day " was waiting for the " hour " when it could get its revenge. The hon. gentleman may think himself justified in making that statement. He may feel that the province of Quebec has grievances against the rest of Canada, but if he will look closely into the history of the past he will find that if there has been one province of this Dominion 'which has shown a disposition to interfere in the purely local matters of other provinces it is, unfortunately, the province from which he comes. That is undoubtedly the-truth, and I merely say that because I want to impress the fact on the mind of the hon. gentleman, and of any others who think and feel as he does. I shall not follow that matter any further. It hope, and indeed believe, that the hon. gentleman when he said the province of Quebec was waiting for its hour and would not confer with other provinces until that hour arrived, was not expressing the sentiments of the people of the province from which he comes, and for whom he presumed to speak.


Hon. THOMAS ALEXANDER CRERAR (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, it had not
been my intention to speak to this resolution this evening, but as I have some opinions in respect to public matters in Canada that I should like to place before the House at the present time and as I understand a vote is to be taken this evening, I must avail myself of the oppoitunity that now presents itself.
It is a matter for congratulation that after four years of absence from the regular meeting place of this Parliament we are now assembled in our new home. I wish to express my appreciation of the magnificent building our Parliaments will have for their home in future. I am among those who believe that it is a good thing to have fine public buildings in a country, and I think we are certainly fortunate in the results that have been achieved here.
I also to wish to make a passing reference to the absence of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden). It was my lot to be associated with him for a considerable period of time during, the progress of the war. He doubtless may have made mistakes, but I wish here and now simply to
bear testimony to this fact that the Prime Minister of this country carried a burden which very few citizens of Canada appreciated, and discharged the most onerous tasks with a conscientiousness and sense of duty that certainly challenged the respect of those who were intimately associated with him.
I also wish to make a passing refer-to the mover (Mr. Cronyn) and the seconder (Mr. McGregor) of the Address. I congratulate the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn) in particular. He delivered an address that will rank high in the records of this Parliament. With a great deal of what he said I am in entire agreement. The seconder of the Address endeavoured to give the House a great deal of useful information, and while I cannot agree with some of the statements he made and some of the conclusions he reached, I wish also to extend to him my felicitations.
In my opinion the speech from the Throne was rather a meagre document. It was reasonable, I think, to expect, at this juncture of our history-shall I say this critical period in the life of the nation- when after the turmoil of war, we are setting about the reorganization of our affairs and the reconstruction of our society upon, we hope a new basis, that the speech from the Throne, which is supposed to foreshadow the legislation that will be brought before Parliament at this session, should contain something more than it did. I say1 that- it was only reasonable to expect this, and had it been done it would have been more to the point. In this regard I would direct the attention of the Government to the speech of the hon. member for London/(Mr. Cronyn), in which they will find much food for thought. If they wisely and closely study that speech they will, I think, find much therein that they could apply in the legislative programme which they may bring before the House, il should like, also, Mr. Speaker, to extend my congratulations to the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) who. has assumed a position of very great responsibility. Under our parliamentary form of Government the leader of the Opposition has a duty which, in my judgment at any rate, is only second to that of the Prime Minister; and I am sure, no matter what our views may be we can lay long enough aside the turmoil of party strife to express the, hope that his career may be long in the position he occupies.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: ' Carried.


Mr.   CEEEAE@: Well, Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen opposite sometimes find such little comfort in this House-
Some hon. MEMBEES: Hear, hear.


Mr.   CEEEAE@: -that I for one have no desire to begrudge any pleasure they may derive from a trivial slip of the tongue. Let me qualify my statement, which I did not mean in the sense in which hon. gentlemen opposite have construed it. I am sure 'that, whether as leader of the Opposition or leader of the Government in this country, the hon. gentleman who has lately assumed the responsibilities of the office which he now fills has the good wishes both of this House and of the country as well. I have to offer, however, one or two criticisms of the speech delivered by the leader of the Opposition. If there has been any departure in this country from the strict principles of representative Government, I am in entire accord with my hon. friend in his desire to see those principles firmly reestablished. But I for one should have liked to hear something from the leader of the Opposition as to what he proposes to do, should he be called upon to discharge the onerous duties of Prime Minister, in respect of many of the matters that are now engaging the attention of the people. After all, his speech, and the admirable speech of the acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) who followed him reminded me a good deal of the days of long ago when it was almost a contest between the " ins " and the " outs " as to who would hold the premier honours in debate in this House. In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, this does not measure up to the occasion and to the needs of the hour. We are facing problems which five years ago we never dreamed we would have to face. We have tremendous issues to settle, and to my mind it would have be&n more appropriate had the leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Government devoted a little more attention to these great and pressing matters than they did in the speeches they delivered a few days ago. Probably it may be regarded as being a trifle forward in a young member of the House to proffer words of counsel to those who occupy these responsible positions. Nevertheless, there are questions of great and urgent moment before us, and in the brief time I shall take up this evening I shall endeavour to discuss a few of them. When all is said and done, there is not much profit in raking up the past and in resuscitating old party strifes and 
fighting them over again, I care not which side it comes from; because, with the great problems facing the country at the present time it is the duty of the citizens, and particularly of their representatives in Parliament where our laws are made,, to devote their attention with all the ability and energy they can bring to bear, to the solution of the questions in the manner that will bring the greatest benefit to our country.
Now, the speech from the Throne tells us that peace has been concluded with Bulgaria and that the Treaty ratifying that peace will presently he submitted - to this House for its consideration. The fact that Canada has found herself in the position of making a Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria carries a great significence with it, and brings home at once to one's mind the place our country occupies to-day among the nations of the world. We have heard ,a good deal from ministers of the Crown in regard to the altered position which Canada now occupies as a result of our participation in the war, and particularly of our participation in the making of peace. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Howell), who, I regret, is not in his seat, has told us- and it has also been told us by some of his colleagues-that 'Canada has attained the full status of a nation, that we have grown away from the position which we occupied in the past. My attention was attracted a few weeks ago by an address delivered by the President of the Privy Council in the city of Ottawa, in the course of which he took strong exception to certain resolutions that were about to be brought before the American Senate dealing with Canada's relations to the League of Nations. If I remember rightly, the hon. gentleman took strong grounds, even going so far as to state that if these resolutions were carried through Congress at Washington either Canada or the United States would step out of the League of Nations. II do not for a moment mention this as a challenge to the hon. gentleman's position on that point, but I would direct this consideration to the House, and particularly to the Government-that at the time the President of the Privy Council was making that speech in Ottawa, one of his colleagues, my esteemed friend the Minister of The Interior (Mr. Meighen) was making a speech in the city of Winnipeg in which he spoke of Canadians as "subjects of Great Britain." Now, there is to my mind a distinction here, and One can understand the position that some

of our American cousins take upon this question, and I would offer the suggestion to- the Government that they should walk circumspectly in regard to it. After all, this question of Canada's status as a nation has yet to be determined.
We were told by the hon. the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), in his speech on the Peace Treaty last autumn, that Canada had acquired a new status, that every one recognized it and that at the forthcoming Imperial Conference which was-to be held this summer he felt quite sure that the steps would be taken to accord Canada that position. If that is to be done I think it is a question that should -be discussed by this Parliament before it is settled by any members of the Government which may attend an Imperial Conference. No matter what these changes may involve, they are too momentous, too far-reaching in their possibilities to be delegated to a small group from our Government, no matter how able or conscientious these representatives may be, Consequently, I for one, take the position that if the Government have in contemplation anything which they propose to place before the Imperial Conference in this regard they should bring it before the House and get an expression of opinion from Parliament before Canada is committed to any particular line of action in respect to it.
There is one other point that has come up in the speeches that have been made in this resolution. There has been considerable discussion of the exchange situation. It certainly is a matter of very great importance to this Dominion. As far as that question is concerned, it does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that the disease, if it is a. disease, must run its course like any other disease and find its own remedy ultimately. It was with some regret that I noticed in the speech delivered by the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) in Winnipeg a statement, when he was discussing this question, which seemed to betray upon his part rather a carelessness of expression -because the Minister of the Interior is not one who usually speaks without knowledge of what he speaks about, but his remarks on this occasion would indicate a carelessness of expression or a lack of knowledge of the conditions underlying the question of our exchange at the present time. There also crept into his remarks a note which I was sorry to see there. Let me read a quotation from his speech. After discussing the question at some length in regard to the United States he said:
Consequently there is one way only in which this country can rescue itself from the humiliation which it is now suffering, of having the value of its dollars dictated by Wall Street- and that is by setting our lines of policy so that the adverse balance will he wiped away and if possible sell them as many goods as we buy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That latter sentiment is
one with -which I am in entire accord, but I do regret to see the suggestion thrown out by the Minister of the Interior that the manipulation of Wall street is the cause of the unsatisfactory conditions existing in our relations with the United States. Which country suffers the more, Canada or the United States, from this question of exchange? Certainly, the United States does, because if the exchange goes against Canada in the United States to that extent it is more difficult to ship goods from the United States to Canada, therefore, from the plainest business reasons, the business men of the United States are just as much interested as we are in seeing thi? question of exchange set right.
The minister also Stated upon that occasion that the present exchange situation vi as due to -the fact that we had purchased from tire United States last year $746,000,000 worth of goods and had exported only $477,000,000. That is partially the reason, but it is not the complete reason. I would point out that in 1911 this country exported to the United States only $112,000,000, while it imported from the United States $274,000,000. In other words, our exports to the United States in 1911 were only 41 per cent of our imports from that country, while in 1919 they were 64 per cent of our imports from the United States. But, there was .then no discount on the Canadian dollar in the United States, and consequently we have to seek elsewhere for a reason for this adverse exchange situation. It is found largely in the great disruption of international trade. Prior to the war we Exported more to Europe than we imported from Europe, and we settled our adverse balance in New York with the surplus sterling we had from the sales that we had made abroad. In that regard I should like also to take issue with my hon. friend from Gape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie). In speaking on this question in the House the other day he made this statement:
Let me say this to the Government and to the country-and I am not particular in what way it will he understood; in fact, it can only be understood in one way-that while I am anxious for -the widest possible trade with foreign countries, I would n-ot trade to the



extent of one five-cent piece *with any country which will not recognize my Canadian dollar to the full face value of that dollar. If this country is loyal to-itself, loyal to its principles, loyal to its institutions, it will stand by Cana-dianism in the matter of having any trade with any country that will not recognize the Canadian dollar at its full face value as international currency.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friends opposite say "hear, hear." Let me draw their attention to the fact that if this is a sound principle of business or of political wisdom for Canada to apply, then it is a sound principle for other countries to apply. We cannot deny to other countries what we would do ourselves. In what position do we find ourselves with the Mother Country? We exported to the United Kingdom in 1919 $560,000,000, but we imported from the United Kingdom only $73,000,000.


John Hampden Burnham: What was the rate of exchange? It is absolutely necessary to know that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not understand the hon. gentleman's question.


John Hampden Burnham: In his present reference the hon. gentleman is applying the whole business of exchange to the old country.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I still fail to grasp the
point that my hon. friend is endeavouring to make. We know that while under normal conditions sterling exchange is worth $4.86 in New York, which has been the clearing house for exchange on this continent, it has fallen to $3.90 and even below that, and consequently the English pound sterling in Canada to-day is at a very great discount.
Mr. ED'VARDS: The Canadian dollar is not worth t.ne hundred cents in the United States. Is the Canadian dollar worth one hundred cents in England?
Mr. CRtCEAR: Certainly it is worth one hundred cents in England. *


John Wesley Edwards: I can sea that was the point that the hon. member for Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie!


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Edwards) I am afraid does not understand the A.B.C. of the economies of this question.
Why should not our dollar be at a premium in the United Kingdom when we are exporting $560,000,006 worth of goods to that country and only buying $73,000,000 from her? What I am endeavouring to place before the House is this:	That if

the argument of my hon. -friend from Cape Breton North and Victoria is sound it could be advanced with equal force by the Britisher, in the United Kingdom, against trading with Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: Stop trading
altogether, that would settle it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Stop trading altogether?
That would not be a very desirabl- way of dealing with the question. I think it is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that statements and inferences of this kind should proceed fiom public men in Canada. After all, one of the things that we are aiming at and hope to achieve, is international good will. If we cannot secure as a result of the great war, a better understanding between peoples and nations, then it does make one wonder what this old world is coming to. We know that in private life animosities or differences of opinion that sometimes ripen into strong antagonisms between individuals often arise from very small causes; and it is a duty, indeed I think an imperative duty, resting upon every public man who occupies a position of any responsibility that he should endeavour to avoid leaving wrong impressions in the minds of the people of other countries. If my hon. friend from Cape Breton and my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior should go to Great Britain and preach the doctrine they have preached in Canada I am sure they would not be very well received. We are setting out on the career of Nationhood and such being the case we must develop a foreign policy of some kind or other. I sincerely hope that the one alluded to is not the foreign policy we are going to develop in this regard.


John Wesley Edwards: Having regard to the
rate of exchange between Canada and the United States, and the rate of exchange between Canada and Great Britain, does not my hon. friend think it would be the part of wisdom to direct our trade to England rather than to the United States?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: At the present time?


John Wesley Edwards: Yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I certainly cannot agree
with my hon. friend, and again he exposes ignorance of the most elementary principles of political economy. The Minister of the Interior told us in his speech in Winnipeg that we should sell more to the United States. We are already selling over $500,000,000 worth more of goods to Great Britain than we are buying from that country.


John Wesley Edwards: The minister also said we should jmport less.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I grant that is one way
to help the situation out.


John Wesley Edwards: But that does not conform with what the hon. gentleman has already said.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not wish to get into any controversy across the floor with my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) whom I esteem very highly.
Now, Mr. Speaker, where does the remedy lie for this condition of our exchange? It lies in greater production in this country and in selling more goods. It lies also in curtailing imports from United States: But we shall make a mistake if we adopt the policy, by artificial means of controlling and regulating the imports into, or even the exports from Canada. As to this question of greater production I would suggest to the Government-I am not sure that the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) whom I hold in very high respect will be willing to take my advice-but at any rate I suggest for his careful consideration when he is framing the Budget to be shortly submitted to Parliament, that he give due regard to this question of encouraging development of our natural industries and of encouraging production in this country in all its forms.
After all, where does the wealth in Canada come from? It lies within our great undeveloped natural resources. We are producing, for instance, in Canada on an average three hundred million bushels of wheat a year, and we have scarcely touched the fringe of the possibilities of development in that regard. Much of our great mining areas are as yet scarcely touched. We also have large timber resources in Canada. How are we going to make these productive? We must place people upon the land. But when we do that we must furnish them with the implements of production to work with. I would therefore suggest to the Minister of Finance that when he is framing his Budget for the coming year he take this fact into account and that he remove from the tools and implements of production in Canada, whether it is for the forest, the farm, or the mine, the duties that at present increase their cost.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka):: Would the hon. gentleman go as far as he is reported to have said he would go in removing all duties in this country?
10*


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend should not get excited. If he will wait for a moment he will get the information for which he is seeking.	x
Now, in what field of development can we most readily and easily find a response in this country? I submit, Sir, that it is in agriculture; and I venture this statement, that if Canada in the last forty years had given one quarter of the assistance in the development of agriculture that she has accorded directly by way of bounties and indirectly by way of a protective tariff, to manufacturing industries in the Dominion, our wealth as a nation would be greater and our population would be larger than it is at the present time. I would point out to the House the excellent and splendid advantage that Canada enjoys in this regard. We have a country that is essentially an agricultural country. We know that our provinces, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, are rich in agricultural possibilities. We can take the Maritime Provinces, and we can take the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario; they contain vast undeveloped agricultural possibilities. We have our Western ,prairies that are as capable of producing one billion bushels of wheat as they are of producing three hundred million bushels. Finally we have the province of British Columbia where resources, although more varied, still contain great agricultural possibilities. I would direct this thought again to my protectionist friends in this House, that the farmers of this country are to-day in the position, where they are selling practically everything they produce in open competition with the world and are buying in a restricted market everything they require for the purpose of production. I can say also that it will take a very long time indeed to convince the farmers of western Canada, for example, that there is any virtue in the principle of protection, especially in a customs tariff. The argument of the protectionist is that we must have this form of state assistance to industry in order to build up a home market and make us independent of outside countries.
But the fact is that we would require 50,000,000 souls- to consume the wheat we now produce in this country, and the same applies to practically every other line of our agricultural products. Let us look at the opportunities that lie ahead of us. Canada occupies the northern half of this continent. Immediately to the south of us. there is a vast country that will soon become a food importing country. To-day

the population of the United States probably reaches 112,000,000 to 115,000,000 souls; within fifteen or twenty years that population may reach 140,000,000. To-day they are within measurable distance of becoming a food importing nation-indeed, in some respects they are now importing the food stuffs we produce.


John Wesley Edwards: They have a surplus of everything the farmer has to sell, and we have not.	*


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They are reaching the
point, I say, when they will be a food importing nation. We have also the excellent advantage of our relationship with the British market, which is a great consuming market. Where does the Britisher get the greater part of the food he eats-the meats and the wheat, and the coarse grains that he requires for his live stock? He has to buy them in-the outside markets of the world. When he buys from the Argentine Republic he has to haul his purchases twice the distance that he requires to carry them from Canada; if he buys in Australia he has to haul them three times the distance, and if he buys in India the haul is more than double that from this country. Consequently, I pay again, Canada as an agricultural country occupies a unique and splendid place in the world to-day. And it does seem to me, Mr. Speaker,-and I have never stated anything with more sincerity than I state this to-night-that it is the part of very great wisdom that we in future direct our energies to the development of our agricultural resources, and in fact to the development ol our natural resources of all kinds. .
To-day we are supplying a very large percentage of the pulpwood that is consumed in the United States; over ninety per cent of the pulp and paper manufactured in this country is exported to the United States. We have great pulp forests yet in reserve, and I Vould offer this suggestion in that regard-that I think the Government might well take into consideration the question of reafforestation. We have large areas that could well be reforested. These bounties of nature will not last forever, and it is the part of wisdom now to lay the foundation for maintaining the supplies of these resources that are necessary for human happiness and human progress.
Now I come to a point that was mentioned yesterday afternoon by my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). He at any rate is honest and frank; there is never any doubt as to where he stands on

any question that he has opinions upon, and, let me say, I have the highest respect for an opponent of that kind. But I do not think that my hon. friend was quite fair in some of his allusions yesterday afternoon. He referred to the Agrarian Movement, and he associated with that the idea of class legislation and class domination. I take issue with my hon. friend in that regard. He has been a Protectionist all his life, he has believed in that principle during the many years it has dominated the fiscal polity of this country, and yet I maintain that there never was perpetrated upon this country a greater instance of class legislation than is to be found in the operation of that principle. What is the purpose of a tariff? It is designed to benefit a particular section of the people, it operates in no other way, and consequently the operation of this protective system in our fiscal policy, which has obtained largely for the last forty years, has conferred upon a special class a privilege that in my judgment is not compatible with a true democracy. And I would point out to my hon. friend from Brantford and to other hon. gentlemen also who believe in a protective tariff, that Protection is nothing more or less than a type of State Socialism. It is State assistance to particular industries, and just as surely as night follows day it will bring this development in its train. If you have a protective tariff you must have your boards of commerce and your regulative bodies that will endeavour to control the thing that you have built up. It was true in Germany, and it was true in the United States, for they were inevitably coming to it if they had not largely modified their fiscal system some seven or eight years ago.
I wish to say this further, Sir, in respect to what my honourable friend terms the Agrarian Movement, that this is not a class movement. It was not a class move-in the constituency of Assiniboia, because in that constituency the towns and villages gave as. good support to' my honourable friend (Mr. Gould) who represents that constituency in this House as the farmers did. It was not a class doctrine in the county of Victoria and Carleton, N.B., despite the fact that my honourable friend, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) went to that constituency and warned the electors against the dangers and evils of "occupational politics." But you must test and judge this by the platform that the Agrarians, if you wish to call them by that title, have laid down. I have stated it on public platforms and in this House,

and I challenge any honourable member, Mr. Speaker, to take that platform word by word and line by line and point out anything in it that is of a class character. Such a thing cannot be found within its four corners. '


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: Will my honourable friend allow me a question? Would he say that the new Government formed in the province of Ontario is fully representative of all classes of the people residing in that province?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am discussing federal
issues, Mr. Speaker. But let me answer my honourable friend in this iway: The Government of Ontario, which contains, I believe, eight farmers and one lawyer, is just as representative of the people of Ontario as the Government that preceded it and which contained eight lawyers and one farmer.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: There you have got your answer.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, the question has also been asked: Where will the revenue come from if we do away with the protective tariff? In that respect I have just this to say, that I am not at all sure that we would not get more revenue, for instance, out of woollen duties if they were on a basis of fifteen per cent than when they are on a basis of thirty per cent. But the Agrarians-and I thank my honourable friend from Brantford for coining that title for me-do not wish to sweep away the tariff at one fell blow ais some people are trying to make out; that is not their policy. Broadly speaking, their policy is based on the principle that the implements and tools of production should be free and that the necessaries of life should be made as free as possible, and in that regard they asked for a substantial all-round reduction in the customs tariff. A tariff on luxuries? Yes, keep it on and raise it higher, but I cannot see the exact wisdom of having certain classes of luxuries imported into this country as they are to-day at a lower rate of duty than that imposed on necessities of life such as cotton, boots and shoes. I would offer this suggestion to the Minister of Finance that he might well raise the tax on luxuries to 50 per cent if he likes; but when he does that, he should also impose an excise tax on the manufacturer in Canada of such luxuries.
But those who have been called the agrarians have certain concrete proposals in respect to revenue. We have the -income tax, and the income tax has come to stay
in this country. I find from the statistics that .for the years 1915 to 1918, the little country of New Zealand collected in income tax over $55,000,000. The population of New Zealand, based on its census of 1916, is roughly 1,100,000. I would direct this to the attention of the Minister of Finance, that if Canada in the same period had collected income tax in the same proportion, we would have collected $470,000,000, when as a matter of fact we collected nothing from income tax during those years, and only $34,000,000 in business profits taxes. In other words, during that period, the little country of New Zealand with a population of about one-eighth of that of Canada collected over $20,000,000 in in-com-e taxes and profits -taxes more than Canada did. I would suggest this as a fertile field to explore in respect of securing revenue.
We are told that if we raise our income taxes, all the wealthy people, who enjoy large incomes will cross the border, and that consequently that source of income would -be shut off from us. What do we find in the United -States? In the year 1919, for instance, the United States collected in income and excess profits taxes over $2,600,000,000. If Canada had collected at the same ratio according to population we would have collected over $200,000,000. I know the difficulty of organizing a system of income taxation. But I will point -this out, that in New Zealand and Australia these income taxes were, -I believe, practically in all cases assessed after the outbreak of war. In these countries, British -countries like our own, they have perfected their machinery at any rate to the point where they are getting vastly more for their revenue -than we are in Canada. Moreover, Canada occupied a very favourable position. We know the orders we had for munitions; we know that our factories of every kind, after the outbreak of war and practically during the whole period of the war, were running day and night to fill the demand for goods to maintain the armies at -the front. On the other hand, New Zealand and Australia, from the position they occupied in the world, from the shortage of shipping on the high seas were placed where they could sell practically nothing except the wool which they produced. Yet -those countries, with smaller income than that which we enjoyed during the war, far outstripped us in the amount they contributed in income taxes. I believe that one of the mistakes we have made-and I do not wish to attribute -blame in any particular direction in that regard-is this, that we have not

paid enough of the cost of the war as we have gone along, with the result the inflation of our currency has been increased and our debt larger than it otherwise would be.
We have also the suggestion-and it is a very wise one-that if we are to get out of the difficulties that may be ahead of us, one of the means of assisting in that is to secure additional immigration to this country. With that, I am in entire accord, but I am not sure that I agree with the estimates that, have been made in some quarters that within the next ten years the population of this country will have increased to 15,000,000 souls. I hope 1 am mistaken, but I am afraid that when the next, census returns come in, they will be disappointing to the Canadian people. We have spent large sums in promoting immigration to this country, and with what result? We have spent large .sums in promoting immigration from the United States to this country, and with what result? Our Department of Immigration and Colonization returns, unfortunately, do not give us the number of people that leave this country for foreign lands. We have records of the number of people that come into this country, but none of those that go out. In this connection I want to give the House a quotation from the last report of the American Commissioner General of Immigration, a United States government report, regarding this matter'. To me, it was a surprise, as I am sure it will be to many members of this House. Here is what he states:
During the eleven fiscal years, 1909-1919, the total immigration from Canada to the United States, including returning American citizens, was approximately 1,288,000, compared with an immigration into Canada from the United States of 1,072,000, or a balance of about 216,000 in our favour. In the movement of United States citizens alone to and from Canada, the balance is in favour of the latter, for during the past ten years nearly 562,000 have gone there apd about 367,000 have come to the United States.
In other words, of the immigrants that we have received in Canada from the United States, amounting in that period to 562,000, according to their figures, 367,000 have returned to the United States.


John Hampden Burnham: Which country had the higher tariff during that period?
Mr. CREiRAR: I am afraid that I do not follow my hon friend. I am anxious, to get through and I am taking up, perhaps, mole time than I should. It continues:
It should he understood that these groups do not include those who cross the border temporarily in either direction, but only those who come or go for expected permanent residence.

But there is one other statement, and this also is significant.
The movement of alien immigrants from Canada-
That is alien immigration from Canada as against native-born Canadians.
-to the United States is very largely made up of persons of northern and western European descent or birth, the chief element in the order of their importance being English, French, Scotch, Irish, German, and Scandinavian. Peoples of southern and eastern European stock form relatively a smalPpart of the movement.
What does that mean? It means that of the immigrants we bring to our shores from England, France, Scotland, Ireland, Scandinavia, and Southern and Eastern Europe, the greater percentage of those who leave us to go to the United States are from those who are considered the best and most desirable class.
These are not pleasant things to contemplate, but I say again to my protectionist friends on the other side, if this is the product of forty years of piotection in this country, surely it is time	to	consider	achange. If we are	going	to	keep thesepeople whom we bring to our shores we must make Canada	a cheap	country	tolive in for the ordinary man; we must make it a good country to live in. Why do people stay in a country? Because it is a good place in which to get along and raise their families. They will not stay if they are up against circumstances which make it difficult for them to make * both ends meet. There is also this fact, which may very well be taken into consideration in conjunction with	this:	In	Canada	in
1918-and I would call the attention of my manufacturing friends in the House to this-we raised 80 per cent of our federal revenues by taxes on consumption. In the same year the United States raised 20 per cent of their federal revenues by taxes on consumption. What does that mean? Simply this, that taxes on consumption are taxes on things that people must have in order to maintain existence. The result is that on the whole the cost of living to the working man is lower to-day in the United States than it is in Canada, and if wages are as good in the United States- and they are, and in some cases they are better-I ask my manufacturing friends how long they are going to keep in Canada their skilled workmen and artisans when that condition of affairs exists. There is only one way in which the situation can be met, and it is to use every possible agency

to make this country a cheap place to live in. When we have done that, I think we shall have largely found the means of retaining within this country the people who come here.
Perhaps the most important item in the bill of fare presented in the speech from the Throne is a new Dominion franchise. A new franchise measure is to be brought before the House. In my judgment there are two main principles that should be embodied in the Franchise Bill when the Government brings it down. First, it must be a fair and just franchise.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am delighted I can make at least one remark that provokes applause from both sides of the House. Secondly, it must provide fair and just electoral machinery.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: From the applause I anticipate that when this measure comes before the House there will be very little difficulty in getting it through. Those are two cardinal principles that should be embodied in our Franchise Act, and in that connection I wish to take issue with my hon. friend from Frontenac( Mr. Edwards) in respect to the War-time Elections Act. I have never been one who supported the War-time Elections Act. I believe it was unsound in principle. I believe it has brought bad consequences that will remain in this country for many years to come. I do not base my criticism of the Act so much on the grounds on which it has been frequently criticised in the past, but rather upon the effect it has had upon the people [DOT]we have brought to this country, and whom we hoped to elevate into good Canadian citizens. What has been its effect? We invited these people to come here, and they came. I am free to confess that in many cases we gave them the franchise too easily, but I hold that once a man has been admitted into the brotherhood of [DOT]Canadian citizenship we should be very careful indeed in taking away from him any of the privileges that go with that citizenship. Its effect on our people has been two-fold. Thousands of these men who were disfranchised took no exception to it. They said: You take the franchise from us, but you relieve us from military service; that is a fair trade. Are those the ideals of citizenship we should instil into our people? Sir, I think not. Every man -of Canadian citizenship should have been
obliged to shoulder the obligations of Canadian citizenship under the Military Service Act. There is no other fair way of working this thing out. On the other hand, there was another class of our foreign-born people who were disfranchised. They had lived here for years and were good Canadian citizens, and they felt that a slight and an indignity and an injustice had been done to them, and they now harbour in their hearts a feeling of bitterness against their adopted country. That is not the way to create good Canadian citizens of the type we wish to have. I repeat, we have been too lax in the past in making easy the way to Canadian citizenship. I would be very careful whom I admit to that citizenship; but once a man is admitted to it he should be protected in all the privileges and enjoyments that go with it, and should be made to shoulder equally with .other Canadian citizens the responsibilities and obligations that .go with it.
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka) [DOT] May I ask a question?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friencl is prolific in questions, but I have no obligation.


Peter McGibbon: Would the hon. member give to Germans who had relatives fighting against us, and who were pro-German, the right to vote in this country during the war?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I would have done this: If he was a Canadian citizen I would have left him his privileges of citizenship, and I would have made him fight. I would have required him to do his duty to his adopted country the same as others had to do. I hope that the defects that exist in the War-time Elections Act will not be introduced in the new Franchise Act. I believe that it is possible for us to make the vast majority of our foreign-born people good citizens. I had the opportunity only a short time ago of coming in contact with some of these people. The first Ruthenians brought to this country were settled within forty miles of the place where I was brought up as a boy and lived to manhood. I saw these people go into what was practically a wilderness, a place where no English-speaking person would ever think of endeavouring to make a home-and what was the result? They got their 160 acres of land, and to-day we find there smiling fields, fine barns, splendid houses, and, let me add, their children going to school and learning the English language. I recently held a number of meetings in my constitu-

ency. I did that because I believe it is the duty of every member of Parliament at proper intervals to meet his constituents and give an account of his stewardship and give them an opportunity to meet and discuss public questions with him. A number of Ruthenians were present at one meeting I addressed. Among other things I said: " We can have no divided allegiance in Canada. The man who comes here and is admitted to Canadian citizenship, no matter from what country he comes, must be prepared to accept the responsibilities and obligations of that citizenship, and he should be protected in his rights of citizenship."
After I was through one of these settlers got up and said: "We come here with the desire to be Canadians. We want to be such, and, to use his own words, " We want to place heart to heart and good will to good will with the other people of this country." That is the spirit in which we can make these people into good Canadian citizens. Let us deal with them fairly and justly, and, if we do, I am sure we shall in the future find in them a valuable asset for our country.
I have already spoken at greater length, than I had intended, but I desire to say a word or two in regard to the amendment which has been introduced by the leader of the Opposition. I do not think he has been at all happy in the phrasing of that amendment, and personally I do not like to see in it any reference to the absence of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) that would in any way be construed in the country or elsewhere as being directly or indirectly a reflection upon that right hon. gentleman. Nevertheless, I intend to support the amendment for the following reason. When the Union Government was formed it was formed for one specific purpose. There was just one issue before the country, and I worked in the interests of that issue because I believed it to be right. In this connection I shall repeat what I have said before, that under similar circumstances I would do the same thing again. There was, as I say, no other issue than this one before the Canadian people at that time. But now we are faced with a new condition of affairs in this period of reconstruction. We are spending vast sums of money and are embarking on great national policies of one kind and another, and I know enough of democracy to believe that the people of Canada should have an opportunity at this juncture of electing a new parliament and of expressing thereby their views and wishes on the important

questions which are clamouring for consideration at this time. I believe that it is the desire of the people that they should again be consulted and have these questions thoroughly threshed out in debate from one end of the country to the other. After all, Mr. Speaker, we are simply servants of the people, and it is our business to embody in legislation what the majority of the people require; and I submit that in the present state of affairs this Parliament has not a mandate from the country upon the many problems we have to face and solve. I am not speaking particularly of either the Government or the Opposition, but of Parliament as a whole. We are not qualified to express, the wishes of the people on the vast issues that confront us because we were not elected upon those issues. The one and only issue upon which the present Parliament was elected has ceased to exist; it has passed beyond the horizon. We are now facing many great problems, and it seems to me only fair and right that the people at the earliest opportunity should be able to express their opinions upon them.
If we survey the past political history of this country we shall find that there has been a great deal in it that has not been elevating, or worthy of our country. I should like to see the members of this Parliament, and those who may succeed them, animated in their attitude to their duty by the splendid spirit of heroic sacrifice that animated our men overseas. If we can bring-to bear, in the responsible and important positions we occupy as the law-makers of our people, the vision, the outlook, and the devotion that inspired our men to such heroic deeds, then I have no fear for the future of Canada. We have recently erected this building, with this noble assembly hall, as a fitting evidence of our deep faith in the future of our country, and I say again that if we, as Canadian citizens, seek only what is good and noble and honest and true, and look only for what is best, in one another, I have no fear for our future prosperity and welfare. If we do this we shall rear in this Canada a nation great not alone in the things that are material but in the character of its institutions and of its people.


Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior):: Perhaps the frequent references of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) to my humble self, and, T fear, his very frequent inaccurate references to a speech I recently made, will justify me in departing from the determination I had

come to until a few moments ago not to take part in this debate. The hon. member for Marquette, who until recent months was a colleague of my own in this Government, left the Administration on a question of policy, and is now a private member as a consequence. In passing, it is worthy of note that though some others have resigned from the Administration, feeling that they had performed as much service to their country as they could, the hon. member for Marquette alone has left the Cabinet because of a difference in point of policy. That is. possibly just worthy of reflection on the part of the leader of the Opposition, who seems to think that when ministers resign, not on questions of principle at all and still support the Administration, it is a sign of disintegration and decay. The hon. member for Marquette has, through some months, so conducted himself as now to be regarded as the head of what is termed the Farmers' Movement in Canada, a movement which he objects to having called a class movement, which he describes as a national movement, but which, if it is of the character and scope he attributes to it, might in my humble estimation very well change its name. I do not know that it is of very great importance just how you describe the movement or the party; names do not count for a great deal. But I should think that a class movement was one that was originated by a class; and having a very simple and ordinary mind I should conclude that the farmers of this country were a class. If this movement was not originated by the farmers as a class, by whom was it originated? I do not know that any other class in Canada had anything to say in the formation of the platform upon which it now appeals. That platform is now a completed fact. It became a completed fact at the dictation and after the sole consideration of the class that originated the movement.
It is true the leader (Mr. Crerar) who 'has just sat down states that they are ready to welcome the votes to office of all and sundry in this country. No doubt in the world they are, but does that make it any more than a class movement, being originated as such? However, that matters little. It does matter though what the platform is. It does matter what course of policy that movement calls to have adopted in this Dominion? That is of first and vital consequence? It does matter as well that any Government in office in this Dominion shall be of such a general and cosmopolitan character as may fairly be said to represent all classes of the people. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), when he was confronted with one of the necessary consequences of any movement of this kind-the first outcome of the political phase of this movement in Canada, being the election of what is known as a farmer's government in Ontario, and the fact that it contains eight farmers, two labour men and one lawyer- answered that it was just as representative of all classes of the Ontario people, containing eight farmers and one lawyer, as the previous administration, as he said, which contained eight lawyers and one farmer. I would have expected an hon. gentleman, who had attained to the high position that the hon. member for Marquette has, to see that his statements to this House, however much he might be tempted to indulge in repartee that seemed momentarily .effective, would bear some resemblance to the facts. Would he be justified in making that retort if the previous Ontario Government had not contained eight lawyers and had contained more than one farmer? What would be thought of his statement if it should be the fact that the Government contained among its number less than half lawyers? Yet, that is the truth; there were five lawyers in that administration and there were six men of other callings. Was it quite right, or was it treating this House fairly that the hon. gentleman should have made the retort that he did? There was in that Administration in Ontario more than one man who had nothing else to do but farm, who did nothing else and who had done nothing else. I do not know how many it may have contained who were occupied in other things as well as on the farm. I do not know that that makes very much difference if the interests of all the people are taken care of, but facts are facts and should be respected as such.
In this connection, let me remind the hon. gentleman that a Government for which he has great respect, and which I for the moment do not attack at all-the Government of the province of Manitoba, a Government from which he holds back the hand of slaughter of those who follow him-contains no individual at all actually engaged in farming, and Manitoba is probably more of a farming province than the province of Ontario, proportionately speaking. 1 do not say that this is a charge against the Government of Manitoba but I do say that his profession in this respect reflects somewhat on the consistency of the hon. member for Marquette.

He made some references-such as have been made more than once in this debate by hon. gentlemen opposite who, when they get a subject that they like, do not hesitate to refer to it very frequently-he made some references to the War-time Elections Act, an Act which has resuscitated a whole lot of adjectives and seems destined to live long in the memory of many. I am not going to enter into an elaborate defence of that statute now. It was argued in this House as fully, as carefully, and as thoroughly as any legislation ever presented to Parliament. It received the assent of Parliament and it was not a party assent alone. Independent members of this House when the debate was heard, supported the principle of the measure. The hon. gentleman was put a very pertinent question by my hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. Peter McGibbon). Did he, he was asked, favour that men lately arrived from alien enemy lands (and they and none others were disfranchised), men possibly and probably whose brothers or whose fathers were fighting against our country, should be given a vote in the election which determined the course of this country in the war? " Yes," he said, " I would give them the vote and I would make them fight." That was not the judgment of the military authorities of Great Britain or of the military authorities of Canada.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It was the judgment of the military authorities of the United States. They enrolled these men and the casualty lists, when they came back to the United States, contained many foreign names.


Arthur Meighen: I am informed
on authority of the highest character that the military men of the United States did not allow them in the front line. But, I would prefer to take my example, even in matters of the late war, from the British Empire, rather than from the United States. These men described by my hon. friend from Muskoka were voluntarily enlisted. Many of them enlisted-relatively, of course, few compared with the rest of the population-but many of them enlisted. When it was found that they were of the character described by my hon. friend from Muskoka, although they enlisted voluntarily, they were turned back and were refused permission to go to the front for the sake of the safety of the hoys of Canada who were fighting. These were the facts and this, was the situation that faced us. Were we to stand in our places here and say:	"We know better than the

men who are actively commanding the forces at the front." Yet, that is what the hon. member for Marquette would have done. That surely is not sound policy. Although I do not like to use the term, it is scarcely common sense.


Mr. W. H. WHITE:: Did the Government a month or so after the election was over, not conscript thousands from the class that were disfranchised?


Arthur Meighen: Never in the world-not a single man.


William Henry White: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is wrong.


Arthur Meighen: We could not do it; the law prevented us from doing it.


William Henry White: I know of hundreds of cases myself.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman cannot know of cases because the statute did not provide for their conscription, nor would we have done so any way because the military authorities would have refused them.
Now, it was of course to be expected that the hon. member for Marquette should refer to the subject of the trade policy of Canada. , This is not the appropriate occasion, as you, Mr. Speaker, have taken occasion to remind us, to enter into any specific controversy on that subject. At all events the more appropriate time is the debate upon the Budget. I will enter into no discussion of it at the present time, therefore, because I believe that when we take the question up at all we should do so in a thorough manner-the debate should be full and free and specifically devoted to that subject. iBut let me say this to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crerar) and to those who sit around him. They regard- and they have led many others to regard- this question as a great issue between those enjoying special rights and the common people of the country. They affect to believe themselves, and undoubtedly they have led many to believe, that he who associates himself with one side of that cause, who believes that the one principle that I, at all events, affirm is the true principle for this country, necessarily is in some way a subject of high and special privilege and the enemy of the common people. Surely one reflection alone will be sufficient to disabuse that impression. The principle that the hon. gentleman attacks, right or wrong, has been more the subject of debate and has been more thoroughly reviewed on this continent.than
I

any other principle ever presented to a free people for one hundred and twenty-five years. Its first 'sponsor on the American continent was the father of the American Republic, George Washington. Was he the friend and ally of special privilege and the enemy of the common people? The second statute that he placed on the statute books of the United States, after it became a nation, was a statute embodying in very pronounced form the principle that the hon. gentleman impugns. Its next prominent sponsor (indeed very, very few opposed it), was the founder of the other great political party in that country, Thomas Jefferson. Coming nearer to our own time, the man who laid the foundations of the present tariff policy of the United States in general form was the man who emancipated the slaves in the United States, Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was an adherent throughout his life to the principle that the hon. gentleman attacks. Was he either the servant or the ally of special privilege? Was he the enemy of the common people of his country? Cali such an allegation be levelled at Theodore Roosevelt, whose principles were just the same? Can it be levelled against a single one of the sponsors of that principle during the whole one hundred and twenty-five years of American history? This thought is presented for the honest reflection of disciples of the opposite faith.
A number of other thoughts occur to me at the moment, but I will reserve them for a more appropriate hour. The hon. gentleman (Mr. iCrerar), however, spent a lot of time on the question of immigration and emigration. He showed that though we did get a good volume of immigration we lost a lot of immigrants to the United States. Well, I draw his attention to the fact that we have not lost very much to Great Britain, so I do not see how he gets very much of an argument out of the emigration statistics.
The hon. gentleman has spoken about abandoned farms in this country. Let me ' say that, I have seen a whole lot of farms that ought to be abandohed, but on which people are struggling along and making a living in some way or other; but I do not know myself of a single farm that is abandoned that does not deserve to, be abandoned from the character of its soil.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not one.


Arthur Meighen: I know a whole lot
though of that type across the Atlantic, for I have seen them, and I also know that the	Prime Minister
of Great Britain lately regretted that between the year 1870 and the present hour four million two hundred thousand acres in th'at kingdom had gone out of cultivation, and I do not know that he ascribed it to the same cause that, to the hon. member. seems to be the fount of all evil.
A pleasant reference was made to myself by the hon. member for Victoria and Carle-ton (Mr. Caldwell), whom I am glad to welcome to this House, whom I have always understood to be in actual life not only a farmer but a good one-so good, indeed, that I understand he performed some service for a farming enterprise that is now under my administration. The hon. gentleman thanked me for coming down to his constituency, and ascribed to me the credit of having given him another thousand of a majority. I do not know just how the hon. gentleman figures it out but I do remember this, and I say it without seeking to take any credit to myself-no doubt I was fortunate in the location of the meetings at which I spoke-we were rather busy here in Ottawa at the time of the election and could not get away, but I was able to visit his county. I managed to hold two meetings, one in the town of Woodstock and one in the town of Andover. Both are thriving communities, and in both the hon. gentleman was soundly defeated by a very substantial majority. I am afraid the hon. gentleman placed his gratitude on a rather false foundation, and that he could have found a much better one if he had been inclined to be reasonable. I do not think he would try to tell the House that he. would have been beaten by a thousand more votes in Woodstock if I had not gone there, surely he does not think the electors were so badly as that against him. That is not what he had in mind. What he must have had in mind is this: That those who did not hear me, those in the rural parts, resented the idea of any one but a farmer talking in the constituency at all and consequently rolled up an increase of a thousand majority in his favour. That must be what the hon. gentleman had in mind; there is no other legitimate conclusion. If that is the case I am afraid he had better be very careful before he tries to convince this House that what he is supporting is not a class movement after all.
iSome reference to me was made also by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould). We are glad to welcome the hon. gentleman here because of the good it will do him. The hon. gentleman devoted some time-I do not know that I gathered his exact point, and if I misinterpret him in

any way I hope he will correct me- to lamenting the adverse position occupied this season by the farmers in his province, in the matter of the sale of their wheat, compared with the competing farmers south of the line. The inference that apparently had to be	drawn from
what he said was that less favourable position was in some way due to the policy of the Government in its creation of the Canadian Wheat Board. I know it has been the practice of many in that country-I hope the hon. gentleman is not one of them-to seek to give the im-piession down the concession lines that the embargo which the American Government placed against the importation of Canadian wheat was in some way ascrib-able to the Dominion Government or to the Canadian Wheat Board. I know that impression is very general, but I do not know who can be the author or authors of it, unless it be some who do not wish very well towards the Government of Canada, like the hon. m mber for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould). Surely he is fair enough to admit -and if fair enough why did not he admit? -that the unfavourable position of the Canadian farmer compared with that of the man to the south had nothing whatever to do with Canadian policy or with the Canadian Wheat Board, but that the American embargo was the work of the United States Government, and that we were not consulted in any way, nor had we anything at all to do with it. He also knew, or should have known, that the creation of that board with the purposes and functions that it has was not only recommended by the organization of which he is a member, but has since been endorsed by that organization. But he would like to convey in some way the impression that fairness has not been done to the farmers of Canada in the creation of the Wheat Board and in the course that it has pursued.


Oliver Robert Gould: Might I ask the hon.
minister a question? In reply to the charge of lack of information, I might state that I made no reference whatever to the Canadian Wheat Board, neither can anything I said be misconstrued to have any reflection upon that board. I merely made the statement that the man on the Canadian side received approximately one dollar a bushel less than his neighbour to the south.


Arthur Meighen: Why did not the hon. gentleman say why? He knew why it was.

May I ask whether he approves of the policy of the creation of the Canadian Wheat Board and of the course that board has pursued?


Oliver Robert Gould: I am quite sure, Sir, that we are in favour of the establishment of the Wheat Board, and I think that possibly we are on record that we would like to have that Wheat Board continued. I have made no charges against them.


Arthur Meighen: Then I hope the hon.
gentleman will not again seek to convey to the House the impression that he does not like the idea of having to rely on participation certificates of the Wheat Board.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) referred to certain remarks I made at Winnipeg. First of all he quoted me as saying, that we Canadians were subjects of Britain. Well, I do not know that I would be disposed to make any apologies if I had uttered those words, though they would not be strictly accurate, but I have read the speech over hurriedly, trying to fulfil the double occupation of reading it and listening to the hon. member at the same time, and I have not any such words there.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Oh, yes.


Arthur Meighen: I think he is relying
on some second-hand criticism. I know that in parts of his speech he quoted pretty much from a criticism in the press that I read myself.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If the hon. minister will allow me to interrupt him? The words are in his speech. I did not use them in any way to reflect on the hon. minister, but rather to contrast his attitude with that of his esteemed colleague, the President of the Privy Council.


Ernest Lapointe: A contrast!


Arthur Meighen: It is no contrast at
all. I am afraid the hon. gentleman spoke too soon. We in this eountiy, as our brothers in Great Britain, are subjects of the King of Great Britain and of the Dominions overseas; that is the correct phrase. As a subject I do not lament the fact; I glory in it. But we can be subjects of Britain's king and at the same time be a nation here with the powers of nationhood that we possess to-day. I think I have stated pretty fairly the common position assumed in this regard by the President of the Privy Council and myself. I do not know that I would feel any better if we

changed the word in this country and used that adopted across the line. They use the term "citizen" there. We are just, as much citizens as they are; in no respect whatever does tne relationship between the individual in this country and the State become inferior or subordinate in any particular to the relationship between the citizen in the United States and the Republic.
My hon. friend also quoted me as making some remarks on the question of exchange, ahd in that respect he ventured to assert that I was wholly wrong on matters of economics-almost as wrong perhaps as he intimated the hon. member for Front-enac (Mr. Edwards) and the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) to be. I did refer to the fact that the Canadian dollar was quoted at eighty-five or less in Wall street and anywhere else in the United States. I quoted newspapers as to the course we ought to follow, and I gave my own opinions on the same subject. I did state that it was due almost wholly to the fact that because we buy more goods from the United States than we sell to them the demand by Canada for American exchange is so great that our friends are in a position to that extent to dictate the price. I never referred to any financial manipulations. It is a necessary result of the trade conditions that exist. When you buy $746,000,000 worth and sell only $454,000,000 worth you are going to need a whole lot of exchange in New York one way or the other, and when you need a lot there against what they need here, it is very likely to depreciate our exchange.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Might I ask my hon.
friend why did not the same result obtain in 1911 when the balance was even more adverse?


Arthur Meighen: I was just about to explain that, and would have done it sooner had the hon. member waited. I have not read the report of my speech in Winnipeg, but I stated there that it was true that we had an adverse balance with the States before the war. We had an adverse balance in 1911.
But' I. will tell the hon. gentleman the difference then. At that time this country was a heavy borrowing nation, not only in the United States, but to a far greater extent in Great Britain-borrowing as a nation, borrowing by provinces, borrowing by corporations; and the moneys that we borrowed were payable in New York and we got the exchange out of our borrowings.
If we could adopt the same course to-day, the situation would be improved; it would be improved as well if we could get actual cash, which we cannot, for the goodsi we sell overseas. As we are not able to do the latter, would the hon. gentleman suggest that we cure the situation now by the same process by which it was cured in 1911, by recommencing the borrowing habit over in Great Britain and London? He knows we cannot do that, and he knows also that we should not do so if we can possibly avoid it. That method of getting exchange in New York is gone. It existed in 1911; it cannot exist today. Therefore, the only possible method of curing the difficulty, is the method suggested by the Toronto Globe, namely, to sell more and to buy less. That is the only method in the world. The hon. gentleman applauds. If that be the way to cure it, is not the opposite the cause of its existence? If we cure it by buying less and selling more, then is not the reason for its existence the fact that we sell less and buy more? The hon. gentleman applauded the first, the second necessarily follows. Why did he dispute the second? Yes, he says, that is true; we have to sell more and buy less, but, for goodness sake, do not, he says, make any regulation to that effect. Do not do it, he says, by artificial means. Well, what means does he propose by which this country shall do that? By exhortation?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: By grayer.


Arthur Meighen: By prayer and meditation. I do not know any way in which a country can act effectively except by passing laws that will have the desired result. It was the only way in which we could act during the war, and the hon. gentleman agreed with us at that time. Something that will not have that result will be found in a plank in the hon. member's platform, namely, to tear down duties against the United States. Such is what I argued in Winnipeg, and I do not know anything wrong with the argument yet. I do not know how we are going to buy less from the United States-I have not much faith in the exhortation system-to achieve the desired result by a process of levelling duties against that country.


Mr. CAHILL :: Try reciprocity.


Arthur Meighen: Try reciprocity?


An hon. MEMBER:: Grievance.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the hon. gentleman has a grievance. In the first place

what the hon. gentleman sought to obtain by reciprocity in the way of helping us to sell goods, we have got to the extent of 90 per cent, arid now having obtained that he wants to take off our duties 100 per cent and so aggravate the trouble we suffer from to-day. If he wishes duties lowered, surely it must be in order to buy more, not less, from the United States.
So much for the subject of exchange. Let me come for just a moment to the amendment that is before the House. The leader of the Opposition moves this House for what? Have hon. members stopped to consider what he is moving this House for? What he wants is an appeal to the country -at least that is what he says he wants. The hon. member has appealed to the country, before, and I do not know that his memories are any too sweet. But according to the terms of this amendment he wants to appeal to the country again. On what question does he want the country appealed to? Has he submitted a principle that he wants debated before the electorate of Canada? Has he told us what he proposes to do that is not being done? No, all he wants is an appeal to the country, and the only conviction he seems to have is this, that this nation is hungering and thirsting to make him Prime Minister of Canada.
This is the first ground of the appeal:
The regrettable protracted absence of the Prime Minister, the widely accepted belief that it is not his intention to return to the duties of his office.
That is the first condition that he wants appealed against. That is the first reason he gives in his resolution for going to the country. What would the people say about that? Does the hon. gentleman say that it would be well for Canada, because her Prime Minister is ill, that he should immediately resign; that there should be no sufferance at all; that there should be no time to determine whether he will he able to return to his great duties or not? Docs he want the people appealed to on that question? What is the next question he wants them appealed to on?-
The makeshift arrangements for the direction of important departments to which no minister has been regularly appointed.
Because there are certain men acting ministers at the present time. I forget how many there are, but I think there are two. The hon. member was a member of a Cabinet that was in olffiqe for fifteen years. Can he tell me a single month in which there was not an acting minister in the whole fifteen years? I do not think there

was one month. I have not had time to go back over the record, but I doubt if he can find a whole month in the fifteen years when there was not an acting minister. Were those "makeshift arrangements"? I have heard criticisms from hon. gentlemen opposite that we had too many ministers of the Crown. If we have, the only way to remedy that situation would be to have one minister take charge of two, departments. But as, soon as we do that, he says that is a "makeshift arrangement".
He says that there are three provinces unrepresented. I think there are two, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, but I am inclined to think that the province of Nova Scotia is fairly well represented in the Prime Minister of Canada even although he is absent. But that, he suggests, is a cause for appeal to the country. Let me remind my hon. friend that no sooner were the three western provinces created by the administration to which he belonged, than the very calamity which he now deplores began to exist and continued to exist through the whole course of that administration. Never from the hour that the three western provinces were created until the d'ay that administration was hurled from power were there ever less than three provinces unrepresented in the Government of the day. One would think that if he were really sinceie in his conviction, that such was an awful state of affairs; that he -would not have sat in that administration. He was an additional member that edged in from the province of Ontario. Why did he not resign and make room for somebody from the unrepresented provinces? Every hour that ' he sat as ,a Minister of the Crown, three provinces of the Dominion were unrepresented in the Government of that day. When Manitoba had a representative, Alberta had none, Saskatchewan had none. Prince Edward Island had none. When Alberta had a representative, *Saskatchewan had none, Manitoba had none, Prince Edward Island had none: Did he think that was cause for an appeal to the country? If not, why does he think so noV ? Then he says:
These and other things-
He has got to the end of them, but he says:
These and other things operate to produce a condition of uncertainty an instability from which a vigourous and efficient administration of the Dominion's affairs cannot be expected.
Just before that he says that there are new conditions now that did not exist when

this Government was elected to office. We are two years and a half ahead, and, therefore very likely the conditions are different- conditions always change in two years and a half. Were not the conditions of 1914 wholly different from the conditions of 1911? When war broke out in .1914 the conditions differed very radically and very suddenly. Was that a cause for appealing to the country? Why we had the leader of the Opposition of that day, and the hon. gentleman himself, and scores of them across the way crying to high heaven against the crime of a wartime election. They said it was just cause for not going to the country, but surely it was just as vast a change of conditions, far vaster indeed, than any that has taken place between December 1917 and the present hour. It is true, and here let me attract, if I can, the attention of the hon. member for Marquette, that the great issue before the country in 1917 was the conduct of the w^r, but that was not the only issue before the country, as he would seek to impress upon this House. The Government of that day, in a manifesto to which he subscribed, laid a programme before this Dominion that contained somewhere around eleven to fourteen different proposals, and very few of them, if more than one, referred to the conduct of the war-proposals relating to woman suffrage and subjects of kindred character, proposals relating to reconstruction and machinery for the purpose of reconstruction. Reconstruction, the very thing he says we have no right to deal with at all! He subscribed 'to that manifesto. Yes, the main issue was the conduct of the war. The main issue in the contest of 1911 was the Reciprocity Agreement, but surely the Government elected in 1911 was not forbidden to treat of \other subjects besides the Reciprocity Agreement. The main issue in 1904 was the Grand Trunk Pacific deal, of unhappy memory, hut surely the Government elected on that issue was not forbidden to manage the affairs of the country up to 1908. The Government elected in 1917 had a mandate to govern Canada, and there were no restrictions or limitations, express or implied, or referred to in speech or in written programme, more than appertained to any government that ever ascended to power. Then why this cry for an immediate election? Because the Prime Minister is ill, and we have an acting Minister of Public Works; there is I now find no other acting minister. But the hon. gentleman says we have to have a general election in Canada right away because he wants to be Prime.
Minister. He has been saying that things are uncertain, that there is terrible stagnation, and all the other disasters of the universe in Canada. He has been saying that for months. What are the disasters? What is the matter? What is it that is waiting for treatment by the Government? Does he expect a tariff programme in a speech from the Throne?
He has no time at all to deal with opium, but he had time as the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) said, to go to China about it and miss a whole session himself, the first year he was in this House, and have someone, I suppose, act in his stead. What is it that is waiting for treatment by the Government? What is the subject we are evading? What is the piece of legislation that is so badly needed, and about which there is such great uncertainty and such turmoil?
What else does he say we are suffering from? Instability; that is another disease of the body politic. What is the legislation he is pining for now? Has this Government [DOT]been afraid to tackle subjects? He says we are a Government by commissions; he told us last Monday that we are governing the the country by commissions. Well, I know the last big problem that was before this Parliament. Was it not the acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway? Was it not the determination of a big thing, something that had to be done to really solve the railway problem in. Canada? Who was the party of commissions then? Who then was shifting, and wanting to evade and delay? Was it the Government? It was the hon. gentleman himself. He wanted another commission appointed to handle tire biggest question that was before this country at that time. He moved an amendment for the appointment of a commission. No, the amendment was moved by the other leader. At all events, he had a part in the formation of that amendment, and II know he supported it, and I know he won't say it has not his sympathy now. Does he ngt think we should have appointed a commission? Has he changed his mind on that subject? A commission, he said, .was the right thing. He could not make up his mind himself what in the world ought to be done, so he wanted a commission appointed to solve the great railway problem of Canada. But the Government of the day brought down a policy which was supported by this House, and the Government has carried out that policy, has carried out the mandate of this Parliament, and ever since my hon. friend supported that resolution for a com-